Luther

LUTHER

IMPRIMATUR

EDM. CAN. SURMONT,

Vic. • Gen.
Wcstmonasterii, die 13 Decembris, 1915.

LUTHER

BY

HARTMANN GRISAR, SJ

PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY

E. M. LAMOND

EDITED BY

LUIGI CAPPADELTA

VOLUME V

LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.

BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.G.
1916

A FEW PRESS OPINIONS OF VOLUMES I-IY.

"His most elaborate and systematic biography ... is not merely a book to be
reckoned with; it is one with which we cannot dispense, if only for its minute
examination of Luther's theological writings."— The Athenccum (Vol. I).

"The second volume of Dr. Grisar's ' Life of Luther' is fully as interesting as the
first. There is the same minuteness of criticism and the same width of survey."

The Athenceum (Vol. II).

"Its interest increases. As we see the great Reformer in the thick of his work,
and the heyday of his life, the absorbing attraction of his personality takes hold of
us more and more strongly. His stupendous force, his amazing vitality, his super
human interest in life, impress themselves upon us with redoubled effect. We find
him the most multiform, the most paradoxical of men. . . . The present volume,
which is admirably translated, deals rather with the moral, social, and personal side
of Luther's career than with his theology." — The Athe7iceum (Vol. III).

"Father Grisar has gained a high reputation in this country through the translation
of his monumental work on the History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages,
and this first instalment of his ' Life of Luther' bears fresh witness to his unwearied
industry, wide learning, and scrupulous anxiety to be impartial in his judgments as
well as absolutely accurate in matters of fact." — Glasgow Herald.

" This ' Life of Luther ' is bound to become standard ... a model of every literary,
critical, and scholarly virtue." — The Month.

"Like its two predecessors, Volume III excels in the minute analysis not merely of
Luther's actions, but also of his writings ; indeed, this feature is the outstanding
merit of the author's patient labours." — The Irish Times.

" This third volume of Father Grisar's monumental ' Life ' is full of interest for the
theologian. And not less for the psychologist ; for here more than ever the author
allows himself to probe into the mind and motives and understanding of Luther, so
as to get at the significance of his development."— The Tablet (Vol. III).

"Historical research owes a debt of gratitude to Father Grisar for the calm un
biased manner in which he marshals the facts and opinions on Luther which his
deep erudition has gathered." — The Tablet (Vol. IV).

CONTENTS

CHAPTER XXIX. ETHICAL RESULTS OF THE NEW

TEACHING . • pages 3-104

1. PRELIMINARIES. NEW FOUNDATIONS or MORALITY.

Difficulties involved in Luther's standpoint ; poverty of
human reason, power of the devil, etc. How despair may
serve to excite humility . • pages 3-7

2. THE TWO POLES : THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL.

His merits in distinguishing the two ; what he means by
" the Gospel " ; his contempt for " the Law " ; the Law
a mere gallows . • pages 7-14

3. ENCOUNTER WITH THE ANTINOMIANISM or AGRICOLA.

Connection between Agricola's doctrine and Luther's.
Luther's first step against Agricola ; the Disputations ;
the tract " Against the Antinomians " ; action of the Court ;
end of Agricola ; the reaction of the Antinomian movement
on Luther . • page* 15-25

4. THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION AND ITS RELATION TO

MORALITY.

Psychology of Luther's conception of this certainty as the
very cause and aim of true morality. Luther's last sermons
at Eisleben ; notable omissions in these sermons on morality ;
his wavering between Old and New . pages 25-43

5. ABASEMENT or PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY.

Faith, praise and gratitude our only duties towards God.
" All works, apart from faith, must be for our neighbour's
sake." There are " no good works save such as God com
mands." Good works done without faith are mere sins.
Annulment of the supernatural and abasement of the
natural order. The Book of Concord on the curtailment of
free-will. Christianity merely inward. Divorce of Church
and World, of Religion and Morals. Lack of obligation and
sanction . • pages 43-66

6. THE PART PLAYED BY CONSCIENCE AND PERSONALITY.

LUTHER'S WARFARE WITH HIS OLD FRIEND CASPAR

SCHWENCKFELD.

On Conscience and its exercise ; how to set it to rest.
Help of conscience at critical junctures. Conscience in
the religious questions of the day. Schwenckfeld . pages 66-84

vi CONTENTS

7. SELF-IMPROVEMENT AND THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH.

Whether Luther founded a school of godly, Christian life.
A Lutheran theologian on the lack of any teaching concerning
emancipation from the world. The means of self-reform and .
their reverse side. Self -reform and hatred of the foe. Com
panion phenomena of Luther's hate. Kindlier traits and
episodes : The Kohlhase case in history and legend. The
Reformation of the Church and Luther's Ethics ; His
work " Against the new idol and olden devil." The Reforma
tion in the Duchy of Saxony. The aims of the Reformation
and the currents of the age . . . pages 84-133

8. THE CHURCH APART OF THE TRUE BELIEVERS.

Luther's earlier theory on the subject ; Schwenckfeld ;
the proceedings at Leisnig ; the Popular Church supported by
the State ; the abortive attempt to create a Church Apart
in Hesse ....... pages 133-144

9. PUBLIC WORSHIP. QUESTIONS OF RITUAL.

The " Deudsche Messe " ; the liturgy not meant for
" true believers "; place of the sermon . . pages 145-154

10. SCHWENCKFELD AS A CRITIC OF THE ETHICAL RESULTS

OF LUTHER'S LIFE-WORK.

Schwenckfeld disappointed in his hope of a moral renova
tion. Luther's wrong teaching on Law and Evangel ;
on predestination,, on freedom and on faith alone, on the
inward and outward Word. Schwenckfeld on the Popular
Church and the new Divine Service . . pages 155-164

CHAPTER XXX. LUTHER AT THE ZENITH OF HIS
LIFE AND SUCCESS, FROM 1540 ONWARDS. APPRE
HENSIONS AND PRECAUTIONS . . pages 165-224

1. THE GREAT VICTORIES OF 1540-1544.

Success met with at Halle and Naumburg ; efforts made
at Cologne, Minister, Osnabriick, Brunswick, and Merseburg.
Progress abroad ; the Turkish danger ; the Council pages 165-168

2. SAD FOREBODINGS.

False brethren ; new sects ; gloomy outlook for the
future .... . pages 169-174

3. PROVISIONS FOR THE FUTURE.

A Protestant Council suggested by Bucer and Melanchthon.
Luther's attitude towards the Consistories. He seeks to re-
introduce the Lesser Excommunication. The want of a
Hierarchy begins to be felt .... pages 174-191

4. CONSECRATION OF NICHOLAS AMSDORF AS " EVANGELICAL

BISHOP " OF NAUMBURG (1542).

The Ceremony. Luther's booklet on the Consecration of
Bishops. Excerpts from his correspondence with the new
" Bishop " . pages 192-200

CONTENTS vii

5. SOME FURTHER DEEDS OF VIOLENCE. FATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL

WORKS OF ART.

End of the Bishopric of Meissen. Destruction of Church
Property. Luther's^ attitude towards pictures and images.
Details as to the fate of works of art in Prussia, Bruns
wick, Danzig, Hildesheim, Merseburg, etc. Protest of the
Nuremberg artists . . pages 200-224

CHAPTER XXXI. LUTHER IN HIS DISMAL MOODS,

HIS SUPERSTITION AND DELUSIONS pages 225-318

1. His PERSISTENT DEPRESSION IN LATER YEARS. PERSECU

TION MANIA AND MORBID FANCIES.

Weariness and pessimism. Grounds of his low spirits ;

suspects the Papists ; and his friends. His single-handed

struggle with the powers of evil . . pages 225-241

2. LUTHER'S FANATICAL EXPECTATION OF THE END OF THE

WORLD. His HOPELESS PESSIMISM.

Why he was convinced that the end was nigh. Allusions
to the end of the world in the Table-Talk . . pages 241-252

3. MELANCHTHON UNDER THE DOUBLE BURDEN, OF LUTHER'S

PERSONALITY AND HIS OWN LIFE'S WORK.

Some of Melanchthon's deliverances. His state of servi
tude. His last years. His real character. Unfounded tales
about him . pages 252-275

4. DEMONOLOGY AND DEMONOMANIA.

Luther's devil-lore. On all the evil the devil works in the
world. On the devil's dwelling-place, his shapes and kinds.
Witchcraft. Connection of Luther's devil-mania with his
character and doctrine. The best weapons to use against the
devil ..... . pages 275-305

5. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LUTHER'S JESTS AND SATIRE.

His humour in the home and in his writings. He finds
relief in it amidst his troubles. Some instances of his jests

pages 306-318

CHAPTER XXXII. A LIFE FULL OF STRUGGLES OF

CONSCIENCE pages 319-375

1. ON LUTHER'S " TEMPTATIONS " IN GENERAL.

Some characteristic statements concerning his " combats
and temptations " . . . . . pages 319-321

2. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE " TEMPTATIONS.''

" Supposing you had to answer for all the souls that
perish ! " "If you do not penance shall you not likewise
perish ? " " See how much evil arises from your doctrine ! "

pages 321-326

3. AN EPISODE. TERRORS OF CONSCIENCE BECOME TEMPTA

TIONS OF THE DEVIL.

Schlaginhaufen falls into a faint at Luther's house.
Luther persuades himself that his remorse of conscience
comes from the devil ..... pages 326-330

BR

V '<"

viii CONTENTS

4. PROGRESS OF HIS MENTAL SUFFERINGS UNTIL THEIR FLOOD-

TIDE IN 1527-1528.

" What labour did it not cost me ... to denounce the
Pope as Antichrist." The height of the storm ; " tossed
about between death and hell " ; "I seek only for a gracious
God." Luther pens his famous hymn, " A safe stronghold
our God is still " ; the hymn an echo of his struggles pages 330-345

5. THE TEN YEARS FROM 1528-1538. How TO WIN BACK PEACE

OF CONSCIENCE.

At the Coburg. " I should have died without a struggle."
The waning of the " struggles by day and by night " ;
thoughts of suicide ; how to reach peace pages 346-356

6. LUTHER ON HIS FAITH, HIS DOCTRINE, AND HIS DOUBTS, PAR

TICULARLY IN HIS LATER YEARS.

His notion of faith, (a) the accepting as true, (b) the be
lieving trust. His picture of himself and his difficulties in
late years ; he compares his case with that of St. Paul and
with that of Christ in the Garden. Some misunderstandings
and false reports as to Luther's having himself condemned
his own life-work ..... pages 356-375

CHAPTER XXXIII. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT IS CON
VOKED, 1542. LUTHER'S POLEMICS AT THEIR
HIGHEST TENSION . pages 376-431

1. STEPS TAKEN AND TRACTS PUBLISHED SUBSEQUENT TO 1537

AGAINST THE COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH.

The Schmalkalden meeting in 1537. Luther, after having
asked for a Council, now opposes such a thing. His " Von
den Conciliis." The Ratisbon. Interim. The Council is
summoned . . . . . . pages 376-381

2. " WIDER DAS BAPSTUM zu ROM VOM TEUFFEL GESTIFFT."

THE PAPACY RENEWS ITS STRENGTH.

Luther is urged by highly placed friends to thwart the plans
of Pope Paul III. The fury of his new book. How to deal
with Pope and Cardinals. The " Wittenberg Reforma
tion " drawn up as a counterblast against the Council of
Trent . pages 381-389

3. SOME SAYINGS OF LUTHER'S ON THE COUNCIL AND HIS OWN

AUTHORITY

" If we are to submit to this Council we might as well have
submitted twenty-five years since to the lord of the Councils."
How Luther would have spoken to the Fathers of the Council
had he attended it . . . . pages 389-394

4. NOTABLE MOVEMENTS OF THE TIMES ACCOMPANIED BY LUTHER

WITH " ABUSE AND DEFIANCE DOWN TO THE VERY GRAVE."
THE CARICATURES.

The Brunswick raid and Luther's treatment of Duke
Henry. His wrath against the Zwiiiglians : "A man that is a
heretic avoid." The exception Luther made in favour of Cal
vin, the friendly relations between the two, their similarities
and divergencies. Luther vents his anger on the Jews in his

CONTENTS ix

" Von den Jiiden " and " Vom Schem Hamphoras " (1543) ;
exceptional foulness of his language in these two screeds.
An earlier work of his on the Jews ; reason why, in it, he is
fairer to the Jews than in his later writings ; some special
motives for his later polemics against the Jews ; his " De
ultimis verbis Davidis." His crusade against the Turks ;
his translation of the work of Richardus against the Alcoran.
His last effort against the Papacy : " Popery Pictured " ;
some of the abominable woodcuts described ; the state of soul
they presuppose. Pirkheimer on " the audacity of Luther's
unwashed tongue " . . . . . pages 394-431

CHAPTER XXXIV. END OF LUTHER'S LITERARY

LABOURS. THE WHOLE REVIEWED pages 432-556

1. TOWARDS A CHRISTIANITY VOID OF DOGMA. PROTESTANT

OPINIONS.

Harnack, etc., on Luther's abandonment of individual
points of Christian doctrine and destruction of the older
idea of faith : The Canon and true interpretation of Scrip
ture ; speculative theology. Luther's own admissions that
Christian doctrine is a chain the rupture of any link of which
involves the rupture of the whole. Luther's inconsistencies
in matters of doctrine as instanced by Protestant theologians :
Original sin and unfreedom ; Law and Gospel ; Penance ;
Justification and good works ; his teaching on merit, on the
sacraments and the supper ; on the Church and Divine wor
ship pages 432-469

2. LUTHER AS A POPULAR RELIGIOUS WRITER. THE CATECHISM.

Collected works : Luther's preface to the Latin and
German Collections. The Church-postils and Home-
postils ; advantages and shortcomings of his popular
works ; his silence regarding self-denial. Origin and charac
ter of the Larger and Smaller Catechisms. His Catechisms
compared with the older catechetic works . pages 470-494

3. THE GERMAN BIBLE.

The work of translation completed in 1534 ; how it was
launched on the public and the extent of its success. The
various revisions of the work and the notes of the meetings
held under Luther's presidency. His anxiety to use only the
best German ; " Chancery German." The language of the
German Bible, its scholarship ; its inaccuracies ; Luther's
" Sendbrieff " to defend his addition of the word " alone "
in Romans iii. 28. The corrections of Emser the Dresden
" scribbler." How Luther belittled certain books of Scrip
ture. Some sidelights into the psychology of Luther's trans
lation. The Bible in earlier ages ; the " Bible in chains."
Luther's indebtedness to earlier German translators pages 494-546

4. LUTHER'S HYMNS.

His efforts to interest his friends in the making of hymns.
His best-known hymn, " A safe stronghold our God is still."
Other hymns ; their character and musical setting. The
" Hymn for the Outdriving of Antichrist " once falsely
ascribed to Luther ..... pages 546-556

x CONTENTS

CHAPTER XXXV. LUTHER'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS
SOCIETY AND EDUCATION (continued in Vol. VI)

pages 557-606

1. HISTORICAL OUTLINES FOB JUDGING OF HIS SOCIAL WORK.

Luther's " signal services " as they appear to certain
modern Protestants. The fell results of his twin principle :
1°, that the Church is alien to the world, and 2 , has no
power to make binding laws . . . pages 557-568

2. THE STATE AND THE STATE CHURCH.

The State de-Christianised and the Church regarded as a
mere union of souls. Luther as " Founder of the modern
State." The secular potentate assimilated to King David.
The New Theocracy. The Established Church. Significance
of the Visitation introduced in the Saxon Electorate. The
" Instructions of the Visitors." Luther to the end the
plaything of divergent currents . . . pages 568-606

VOL. V.

THE REFORMER (III)

LUTHEK

CHAPTER XXIX

ETHICAL RESULTS OF THE NEW TEACHING

1. Preliminaries. New Foundations of Morality

LUTHER'S system of ethics mirrors his own character. If
Luther's personality, in all its psychological individuality,
shows itself in his dogmatic theology (see vol. iv., p. 387 ff.),
still more is this the case in his ethical teaching. To obtain
a vivid picture of the mental character of their author and
of the inner working of his mind, it will suffice to unfold his
practical theories in all their blatant contradiction and to
examine on what they rest and whence they spring. First
and foremost we must investigate the starting-point of his
moral teaching.

To begin with, it was greatly influenced by his theory
that the Gospel consisted essentially in forgiveness, in the
cloaking over of guilt and in the soothing of " troubled
consciences." Thanks to a lively faith to reach a feeling of
confidence, is, according to him, the highest achievement of
ethical effort. At the same time, however, Luther lets it
be clearly understood that we can never get the better of
sin. In the shape of original sin it ever remains ; con
cupiscence is always sinful ; and, even in the righteous,
actual sin persists, only that its cry is drowned by the voice
speaking from the Blood of Christ. Man must look upon
himself as entirely under the domination of the devil, and,
only in so far as Christ ousts the devil from his human
stronghold, can a man be entitled to be called good. In
himself he is not even free to do what is right.

To the author of such doctrines it was naturally a matter
of some difficulty to formulate theoretically the injunctions
of morality. Some Protestants indeed vaunt his system of
ethics as the best ever known, and as based on an entirely

3

4 LUTHER THE REFORMER

" new groundwork." Many others, headed by Staudlin the
theologian, have nevertheless openly admitted that " no
system of Christian morality could exist," granted Luther's
principles.1

Of his principles the following must be borne in mind.
Man's attitude towards things Divine is just that of the
dumb, lifeless " pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was
changed " ; " he is not one whit better off than a clod or
stone, without eyes or mouth, without any sense and with
out a heart."2 Human reason, which ought to govern moral
action, becomes in matters of religion " a crazy witch and
Lady Hulda,"3 the " clever vixen on whom the heathen
hung when they thought themselves cleverest."4 Like
reason, so the will too, in fallen man, behaves quite nega
tively towards what is good, whether in ethics or in religion.
" We remain as passive," he says, " as the clay in the hands
of the potter " ; freedom there is indeed, " but it is not
under our control." In this connection he refers to Melanch-
thon's "Loci communes,"5 whence some striking statements
against free-will have already been quoted in the course of
this work.6

It is only necessary to imagine the practical application
of such principles to perceive how faulty in theory Luther's
ethics must have been. Luther, however, was loath to see
these principles followed out logically in practice.

Other theories of his which he applies either not at all or
only to a very limited extent in ethics are, for instance, his
opinions that the believer, " even though he commit sin,
remains nevertheless a godly man," and, that, owing to our
trusting faith in Christ, God can descry no sin in us " even
when we remain stuck in our sins," because we " have
donned the golden robe of grace furnished by Christ's
Blood." In his Commentary on Galatians he had said :
" Act as though there had never been any law or any sin
but only grace and salvation in Christ " ;7 he had declared

" Gesch. der Moral," Gottingen, 1908, p. 209.

Cp. the passages quoted in Mohler, " Symbolik," § 11.

" Werke," Weim. ed., 24, p. 516 ; Erl. ed., 34, p. 138.

/&., 10, 2, p. 295 = 162, p. 532.

Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 7.

6 Vol. ii., p. 239 f. and vol. iv., p. 435. Cp. Luther's own words,
passim, in our previous volumes.

7 Comm. on Gal., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557 ; Irmischer, 2, p. 144.

LACK OF MORAL INCENTIVE 5

that all the damned were predestined to hell, and, in spite of
their best efforts, could not escape eternal punishment.
(Vol. ii., pp. 268 ff., 287 ff.)

In view of all the above we cannot help asking ourselves,
whence the moral incentive in the struggle against the
depravity of nature is to come ; where, granted that our
will is unfree and our reason blind, any real ethical answer-
ableness is to be found ; what motive for moral conduct a
man can have who is irrevocably predestined to heaven or
to hell ; and what grounds God has for either rewarding or
punishing ?

To add a new difficulty to the rest, Luther is quite certain
of the overwhelming power of the devil. The devil sways all
men in the world to such a degree, that, although we are
" lords over the devil and death," yet " at the same time we
lie under his heel ... for the world and all that belongs to
it must have the devil as its master, who is far stronger than
we and clings to us with all his might, for we are his guests
and dwellers in a foreign hostelry."1 But because through
faith we are masters, "my conscience, though it feels its
guilt and fears and despairs on its account, yet must insist
on being lord and conqueror of sin ... until sin is entirely
banished and is felt no longer."2 Yea, since the devil is so
intent on affrighting us by temptations, " we must, when
tempted, banish from sight and mind the whole Decalogue
with which Satan threatens and plagues us so sorely."3

Such advice could, however, only too easily lead people to
relinquish an unequal struggle with an unquenchable Con
cupiscence and an overwhelmingly powerful devil, or, to lose
sight of the distinction between actual sin and our mere
natural concupiscence, between sin and mere temptation ;
Luther failed to see that his doctrines would only too readily
induce an artificial confidence, and that people would put the
blame for their human frailties on their lack of freedom, their
ineradicable concupiscence, or on the almighty devil.

How, all this notwithstanding, he contrived to turn his
back on the necessary consequences of his own teaching, and
to evolve a practical system of ethics far better than what
his theories would have led us to expect, is plain from his

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 36, p. 495 ; Erl. ed., 51, p. 90. Cp. our
vol. iv., p. 436. 2 Ib., p. 495 = 91.

3 To Hier. Weller (July ?), 1530, " Brief wechsel," 8, p. 159.

6 LUTHER THE REFORMER

warm recommendation of good works, of chastity, neigh
bourly love and other virtues.

* In brief, he taught in his own way what earlier ages had
also taught, viz. that sin and vice must be shunned ; in his
own way he exhorted all to practise virtue, particularly to
perform those deeds of brotherly charity reckoned so high in
the Church of yore. In what follows we shall have to see
how far his principles nevertheless intervened, and how
much personal colouring he thereby imparted to his system
of ethics. In so doing what we must bear in mind is his own
way of viewing the aims of morality and practical matters
generally, for here we are concerned, not with the results at
which he should logically have arrived, but with the opinions
he actually held.

The difficulty of the problem is apparent not merely from
the nature of certain of his theological views just stated, but
particularly from what he thought concerning original sin
and concupiscence, which colours most of his moral teaching.

In his teaching, as we already know, original sin remains,
even after baptism, as a real sin in the guise of con
cupiscence ; by its evil desires and self-seeking it poisons
all man's actions to the end of his life, except in so far as his
deeds are transformed by the " faith " from above into
works pleasing to God, or rather, are accounted as such.
Owing to the enmity to God which prevails in the man who
thus groans under the weight of sin even " civil justice is
mere sinfulness ; it cannot stand before the absolute
demands of God. All that man can do is to acknowledge
that things really are so and to confess his unrighteous
ness."1 Such an attitude Luther calls " humility." Catholic
moralists and ascetics have indeed ever made all other
virtues to proceed from humility as from a fertile source,
but there is no need to point out how great is the difference
between Luther's " humility " and that submission of the
heart to God's will of which Catholic theologians speak.
Humility, as Luther understood it, was an " admission of
our corruption " ; according to him it is our recognition of
the enduring character of original sin that leads us to God and
compels us "to admit the revelation of the Grace of God
bestowed on us in Christ's work of redemption," by means

1 W. Braun, " Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben
und Lehre," Berlin, 1908, p. 310.

LAW AND GOSPEL 7

of "faith, i.e. security of salvation." It is possible to speak
" only of a gradual restraining of sin," so strongly are we
drawn to evil. We indeed receive grace by faith, but of any
infused grace or blotting out of sin, Luther refuses to hear,
since the inclinations which result from original sin still
persist. Hence " by grace sin is not blotted out." Rather,
the grace which man receives is an imputed grace ; " the real
answer to the question as to how Luther arrived at his
conviction that imputed grace was necessary and not to be
escaped is to be found in his own inward experience that the
tendencies due to original sin remain, even in the regenerate.
This sin, which persists in the baptised, . . . forces him, if
he wishes to avoid the pitfall of despair ... to keep before
his mind the consoling thought . . . ' that God does not
impute to him his sin.' J>1

2. The two Poles: the Law and the Gospel

One of the ethical questions that most frequently engaged
Luther's attention concerned the relation of Law and Gospel.
In reality it touched the foundations of his moral teaching.

His having rightly determined how Law and Gospel stood
seemed to him one of his greatest achievements, in fact one
of the most important of the revelations made to him from
on High. " Whoever is able clearly to distinguish the Law
from the Gospel," he says, " let such a one give thanks to
God and know that he is indeed a theologian."2 Alluding to
the vital importance of Luther's theory on the Law with its
demands and the Gospel with its assurance of salvation,
Friedrich Loofs, the historian of dogma, declares : Here
" may be perceived the fundamental difference between the
Lutheran and the Catholic conception of Christianity,"3
though he does not fear to hint broadly at the " defects "
and " limitations " of Luther's new discovery ; rather he
admits quite openly, that some leading aspects of the
question " never even revealed themselves clearly " to
Luther, but betray a " notable " lack of discernment, and
that Luther's whole conception of the Law contained
" much that called for further explanation."4

1 Braun, ib., p. 310-312.

1 " Comm. on Gal.," Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 207 ; Irmischer, 1, p. 172.

3 "Leitfaden zum Stud, der DC," Halle, 19G6, p. 722.

4 Ib., pp. 770 f., 773 f., 778.

8 LUTHER THE REFORMER

In order to give here a clearer picture of Luther's doctrine
on this matter than it was possible to do in the earlier
passages where his view was touched upon it may be pointed
out, that, when, as he so frequently does, he speaks of the
Law he means not merely the Old-Testament ceremonial
and judicial law, but even the moral law and commands
both of the Old Covenant1 and of the New,2 in short every
thing in the nature of a precept binding on the Christian the
infringement of which involves him in guilt ; he means, as
he himself expresses it, " everything . . . that speaks to us
of our sins and of God's wrath."3

By the Gospel moreover he understands, not merely the
promises contained in the New Testament concerning our
salvation, but also those of the Old Covenant ; he finds the
Gospel everywhere, even previous to Christ : " There is not
a book in the Bible," he says, " which does not contain them
both [the Law and the Gospel]. God has thus placed in
every instance, side by side, the Law and the promises, for,
by the Law, He teaches what we are to do, and, by the
promises, how we are to set about it." In his church-postils
where this passage occurs Luther explains more fully what
he means by the " promise," or Gospel, as against the Law :
It is the " glad tidings whereby grace and forgiveness of sins
is offered. Hence works do not belong to the Gospel, for it
is no law, but faith only [is required], for it is simply a
promise and an offer of Divine grace. Whoever believes it
receives the grace."4

As to the relationship between the Law and the Gospel :
Whereas the Law does not express the relation between God
and man, the Gospel does. The latter teaches us that we
may, nay must, be assured of our salvation previous to any
work of ours, in order, that, born anew by such faith, we
may be ready to fulfil God's Will as free, Christian men.
The Law, on the other hand, reveals the Will of God, on
pedagogic grounds, as the foundation of a system of merit or
reward. It is indeed necessary as a negative preparation
for faith, but its demands cannot be complied with by the
natural man, to say nothing of the fact that it seems to make
certainty of salvation, upon which everything depends in

1 Cp. Loofs, ib.y p. 771, n. 4.

2 But cp. what Loofs says, ib., p. 772, n. 5.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 132, p. 153. 4 Ib., 102, p. 96

LAW AND GOSPEL 9

our moral life, contingent on the fulfilment of its pre
scriptions.1

From this one can see how inferior to the Gospel is the Law.

The Law speaks of " facer -e, operari" of " deeds and
works " as essential for salvation. " These words " — so
Luther told the students in his Disputations in 1537 on the
very eve of the Antinomian controversy — " I should like to
see altogether banished from theology ; for they imply the
notions of merit and duty (" meritum et debitum "), which is
beyond toleration. Hence I urge you to refrain from the use
of such terms."2

What he here enjoins he had himself striven to keep in view
from the earliest days of his struggle against " self -righteous
ness " and " holiness-by-works." These he strove to under
mine, in the same measure as he exalted original sin and its con
sequences. Psychologically his attitude in theology towards
these questions was based on the renegade monk's aversion
to works and their supposed merit. His chief bugbear is the
meritoriousness of any keeping of the Law. For one reason
or another he went further and denied even its binding
character (" debitum ") ; caught in the meshes of that
pseudo-mystic idealism to which he was early addicted we
hear him declaring : the Christian, when he is justified by
" faith," does of his own accord and without the Law every
thing that is pleasing to God ; what is really good is per
formed without any constraint out of a simple love for what
is good. In this wise it was that he reached his insidious
thesis, viz. that the believer stands everywhere above the Law
and that the Christian knows no Law whatever.3 In quite
general terms he teaches that the Law is in opposition to
the Gospel ; that it does not vivify but kills ; and that its
real task is merely to frighten us, to show us what we are
unable to do, to reveal sin and " increase it." The preaching
of the Law he here depicts, not as " good and profitable, but
as actually harmful," as " nothing but death and poison."4

That such a setting aside of the specifically Mosaic Law
appealed to him, we can readily understand. But does he

1 Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 721 f.

" Disput.," ed. P. Drews, p. 159 ; cp. ib., pp. 126, 136 f., 156.

3 " Dixi . . . quod christianus nullam prorsus legem habeat, sed quod
tota illi lex abrogata sit cum suis terroribus et vexationibus." " Comm.
on Gal.," Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 668 f. ; Irmischer, 2, p. 263.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 92, p. 238 f.

10 LUTHER THE REFORMER

include in his reprobation the whole " lex moralis," the
Natural Law which the Old Testament merely confirmed,
and which, according to Luther himself, is written in man's
heart by nature ? This Law he asserts is implicitly obeyed
as soon as the heart, by its acceptance of the assurance of
salvation, is cleansed and filled with the love of God.1 And
yet " in many instances he applies to this Natural Law what
he says elsewhere of the Law of Moses ; it too affrights us,
increases sin, kills, and stands opposed to the Gospel."2
Desirous of destroying once and for all any idea of righteous
ness or merit being gained through any fulfilment of any
Law, he forgets himself, in his usual way, and says strong
things against the Law which scarcely agree with other
statements he makes elsewhere.

Owing to polemists taking too literally what he said, he
has been represented as holding opinions on the Law and
the Gospel which in point of fact he does not hold ; indeed,
some have made him out a real Antinomian. Yet we often
hear him exhorting his followers to bow with humility to
the commandments, to bear the yoke of submission and
thus to get the better of sin and death. Nevertheless, par
ticularly when dealing with those whose " conscience is
affrighted," he is very apt to forget what he has just said in
favour of the Law, and prefers to harp on his pet theology :
" Man must pay no heed to the Law but only to Christ."
" In dealing with this aspect of the matter we cannot speak
too slightingly of so contemptuous a thing [as the Law]."3

His changeableness and obscurity on this point is character
istic of his mode of thought.

At times he actually goes so far as to ascribe to the Law merely
an outward, deterrent force and to make its sole value in ordinary
life consist in the restraining of evil. Even when he is at pains
to emphasise the " real, theological " use of the Law as prepara
tory to grace, he deliberately introduces statements concerning

1 Ib., Weim. ed., 24, p. 10 ; Erl. ed., 33, p. 13. Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 764,
n. 2.

2 Loofs, ib., p. 773, where he cites the "Comm. on Gal." (1535),
Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 209 ; Irmischer, 1, p. 174.

3 " Quia Paulus hie versatur in loco iustificationis, . . . necessitas
postulabat, ut de lege tamquam de re contemptissima loqueretur, neque
satis viliter et odiose, cum in hoc argumento versamur, de ea loqui pos-
sumus." " Comm. on Gal.," Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 557 ; Irmischer, 2,
p. 144. " Conscientia perterrefacta . . . nihil de lege et peccato scire
debet, sed tantum de Christo." Ib., p. 207 f.=p. 173 sq. Cp. " Werke,"
Erl. ed., 58, p. 279 f. ("Tischreden ") and " Opp. lat. var." 4, p. 427.

LAW AND GOSPEL 11

the Law which do not at all help to explain the matter. Accord
ing to him, highly as we must esteem the Law for its sacred
character, its effect upon people who are unable to keep it is
nevertheless not wholesome but rather harmful, because thereby
sin is multiplied, particularly the sin of unbelief, i.e. as seen in
want of confidence in the certainty of salvation and in the
striving after righteousness by the exact fulfilling of the Law.1
" Whoever feels contrition on account of the Law," he says for
instance, " cannot attain to grace, on the contrary he is getting
further and further away from it."2

Even for the man who has already laid hold on salvation by
the " fides specialis " and has clothed himself in Christ's merits,
the deadening and depraving effect of the Law has not yet ceased.
It is true that he is bound to listen to the voice of the Law and
does so with profit in order to learn " how to crucify the flesh by
means of the spirit, and direct his steps in the concerns of this
life." Yet — and on this it is that Luther dwells — because the
pious man is quite unable to fulfil the Law perfectly, he is only
made sensible of his own sinfulness ; against this dangerous feeling
he must struggle.3 Hence everything depends on one's ability
to set oneself with Christ above the Law and to refuse to listen
to its demands ; for Christ, Who has taken the whole load upon
Himself, bears the sin and has fulfilled the Law for us.4 That
this, however, was difficult, nay, frequently, quite impossible,
Luther discovered for himself during his inward struggles, and
made no odds in admitting it. He gives a warning against engaging
in any struggles with our conscience, which is the herald of the
Law ; such contests " often lead men to despair, to the knife and
the halter."5 Of the manner in which he dealt with his own con
science we shall, however, speak more in detail below (XXIX, 6).

It is not necessary to point out the discrepancies and contra
dictions in the above train of thought. Luther was untiring in
his efforts at accommodation, and, whenever he wished, had
plenty to say on the matter. Here, even more plainly than else
where, we see both his lack of system and the irreconcilable con
tradictions lying in the very core of his ethics and theology.
Friedrich Loofs says indulgently: "Dogmatic theories he had
none ; without over much theological reflection he simply gives
expression to his religious convictions."6

It is strange to note how the aspect of the Law changes accord
ing as it is applied to the wicked or to the just, though it was
given for the instruction and salvation of all alike. In the New
Testament we read : " My yoke is sweet and my burden light,"

1 Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 775. Luther here refers to Rom. v. 20 ; vii. 9, etc.

2 " Contritus lege tantum abest ut perveniat ad gratiam, ut longius ab
ea discedat" " Disput.," ed. P. Drews, p. 284.

3 " Comm. on Gal.," Weim. ed., 2, p. 498 ; 40, 1, p. 208 ; Irmischer,
3, p. 236 ; 1, p. 173. 4 Loofs, ib., p. 775 f.

5 " Quce (conscientia) scepe ad desperationem, ad gladium etadlaqueum
homines adigit." " Werke," Weim. ed., 25, p. 330 ; " Opp. lat. exeg.,"
23, p. 141 sq. « P. 737, n.

12 LUTHER THE REFORMER

but even in the Old Testament it had been said : " Much peace
have they that love thy Law."1 According to Luther the man
who is seeking for salvation and has not yet laid hold on faith in
the forgiveness of sins must let himself be " ground down [' con-
teri,' cp. ' contritio '] by the Law " until he has learnt " to live
in a naked trust in God's Mercy."2 The man, however, who
by faith has assured himself of salvation looks at the Law and
its transgressions, viz. sin, in quite a different light.

" He lives in a different world," says Luther, " where he must
know nothing either of sin or of merit ; if however he feels his
sin, he is to look at it as clinging, not to his own person, but to
the person (Christ) on whom God has cast it, i.e. he must regard
it, not as it is in itself and appears to his conscience, but rather
in Christ by Whom it has been atoned for and vanquished. Thus
he has a heart cleansed from all sin by the faith which affirms
that sin has been conquered and overthrown by Christ. . . .
Hence it is sacrilege to look at the sin in your heart, for it is the
devil who puts it there, not God. You must say, my sins are not
mine ; they are not in me at all ; they are the sins of another ;
they are Christ's and are none of my business."3 Elsewhere he
describes similarly the firm consolation of the righteous with
regard to the Law and its accusations of sin : '' This is the
supreme comfort of the righteous, to vest and clothe Christ with
my sins and yours and those of the whole world, and then to
look upon Him as the bearer of all our sins. The man who thus
regards Him will soon come to scorn the fanatical notions of the
sophists concerning justification by works. They rave of a faith
that works by love ('fides formata caritate'), and assert that
thereby sins are taken away and men justified. But this simply
means to undress Christ, to strip Him of sin, to make Him
innocent, to burden and load ourselves with our own sins and to
see them, not in Christ, but in ourselves, which is the same thing
as to put away Christ and say He is superfluous."4

The confidence with which Luther says such things concerning
the transgression of the Divine Law by the righteous is quite
startling ; nor does he do so in mere occasional outbursts, but his
frequent statements to this effect seem measured and dispassion
ate, nor were they intended simply for the learned but even
for common folk. It was for the latter, for instance, that in his
" Sermon von dem Sacrament der Puss " he said briefly : "To
him who believes, everything is profitable and nothing harmful,
but, to him who believes not, everything is harmful and nothing
profitable."6

" Whosoever does not believe," i.e. has failed to lay hold of

1 Mt. xi. 30 ; Ps. cxviii. 165.

2 "Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 357; " Opp. lat. var.," 1, p. 392.
Luther frequently uses the term " conteri lege."

3 " Dices enim : Peccata mea non sunt mea, quia non sunt in me, sed
sunt aliena, Christi videlicet ; non ergo me Icedere poterunt." " Werke,"
Weim. ed., 25, p. 330 ; " Opp. lat. exeg.," 23, p. 141.

4 " Comm. on Gal.," Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 436 ; Irmischer, 2, p. 17.

5 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 723 ; Erl. ed., 162, p. 48.

LAW AND GOSPEL 13

the certainty of salvation, deserves to feel the relentless severity
of the Law ; let him learn that the " right understanding and
use of the Law " is this, " that it does no more than prove " that
all " who, without faith, follow its behests are slaves, stuck [in
the Law] against their will and without any certainty of grace."
" They must confess that by the Law they are unable to make
the slightest progress."

" Even should you worry yourself to death with works, still
your heart cannot thereby raise itself to such a faith as the Law
calls for."1

Thus, by the Law alone, and without the help of Luther's
" faith," we become sheer " martyrs of the devil."

It is this road, according to him, that the Papists tread and
that he himself, so he assures us, had followed when a monk.
There he had been obliged to grind himself on the Law, i.e. had
been forced to fight his way in despair until at last he discovered
justification in faith.2 One thing that is certain is his early
antipathy — due to the laxity of his life as a religious and to his
pseudo-mysticism — for the burdens and supposed deadening
effect of the Law, an antipathy to which he gave striking expres
sion at the Heidelberg Disputation.3

Luther remained all his life averse to the Law.4 In 1542,
i.e. subsequent to the Antinomian controversy, he even
compared the Law to the gallows. He hastens, however, to
remove any bad impression he may have made, by referring
to the power of the Gospel : " The Law does not punish the
just ; the gallows are not put up for those who do not steal
but for robbers."5 The words occur in an answer to his
friends' questions concerning the biblical objections advanced
by the Catholics. They had adduced certain passages in
which everlasting life is promised to those who keep the Law
(" factor -es legis ") and where " love of God with the whole
heart " rather than faith alone is represented as the true

1 Ib., 10, 1, 1. p. 338 f. = 72, p. 259 ff.

2 See, however, below, vol. vi., xxxvii., 2.

3 Vol. i., p. 317 f. and passim.

4 Cp. Mathesius, " Tischreden," ed. Kroker, p. 260. — Ammon
(" Hdb. der chr. Sittenlehre," 1, 1823, p. 76) laments that Luther
" regarded the moral law merely as a vision of terror," and that
according to him "the essence of the Christian religion consisted, not
in moral perfection, but in faith." De Wette, " Christl. Sittenlehre,"
2, 2, 1821, p. 280 f., thinks that an ethical system might have been
erected on the antithesis set up by Luther between the Law and the
Gospel and on his theories of Christian freedom, " but that Luther was
not equal to doing so. He was too much taken up with his fight against
the Catholic holiness-by-works to devote all the attention he should to
the moral side of the question and not enough of a scholar even to
dream of any connection between faith and morality being feasible."

5 Mathesius, ib. The Note in question is by Caspar Heydenreich.

14 LUTHER THE REFORMER

source of righteousness and salvation. Luther solves the
questions to his own content. Those who keep the Law, he
admits, " are certainly just, but not by any means owing
to their fulfilment of the Law, for they were already just
beforehand by virtue of the Gospel ; for the man who acts
as related in the Bible passages quoted stands in no need
of the Law. . . . Sin does not reign over the just, and, to
the end, it will not sully them. . . . The Law is named
merely for those who sin, for Paul thus defines the Law :
'The Law is the knowledge of sin' (Rom. iii. 20)."— In
reality what St. Paul says is that " By the Law is the know
ledge of sin," and he only means that the Old-Testament
ordinances of which he is speaking, led, according to God's
plan, to a sense of utter helplessness and therefore to a
yearning for the Saviour. Luther's very different idea, viz.
that the Law was meant for the sinner and served as a gallows,
is stated by W. Walther the Luther researcher, in the
following milder though perfectly accurate form : " In so
far as the Christian is not yet a believer he lacks true
morality. Even in his case therefore the Law is not yet
abrogated."1

" A distinction must be made," so Luther declares,
" between the Law for the sinner and the Law for the non-
sinner. The Law is not given to the righteous, i.e. it is not
against them."2

The olden Church had stated her conception of the Law and
the Gospel both simply and logically. In her case there was no
assumption of any assurance of salvation by faith alone to dis
turb the relations between the Law and the Gospel ; one was the
complement of the other ; though, agreeably to the Gospel, she
proclaimed the doctrine of love in its highest perfection, yet at
the same time, like St. Peter, she insisted in the name of the
*' Law," that, in the fear of sin and " by dint of good works " we
must make sure our calling and election (2 Peter i. 10). She
never ceased calling attention to the divinely appointed connec
tion between the heavenly reward and our fidelity to the Law,
vouched for both in the Old Testament (" For thou wilt render
to every man according to his works," Ps. Ixi. 13) and also in
the New (" The Son of Man will render to every man according
to his works," Mt. xvi. 27, and elsewhere, " For we must all be
manifested before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may
receive the proper things of the body according as he hath done,
whether it be good or evil," 2 Cor. v. 10).

1 " Christl. Sittlichkeit nach Luther," 1909, p, 91 f.

2 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 261.

JOHANN AGRICOLA 15

3. Encounter with the Antinomianism of Agricola

Just as the Anabaptist and fanatic movement had
originally been fostered by Luther's doctrines, so Antinomi
anism sprang from the seed he had scattered.

Johann Agricola, the chief spokesman of the Antinomians,
merely carried certain theses of Luther's to their logical
conclusion, doing so openly and regardless of the conse
quences. He went much further than his master, who
often had at least the prudence here and elsewhere to turn
back half-way, a want of logic wrhich Luther had to thank
for his escape from many dangers in both doctrine and
practice. In the same way as Luther, with the utmost
tenacity and vigour, had withstood the Anabaptists and
fanatics when they strove to put in full practice his own
principles, so also he proclaimed war on the Antinomians'
enlargement and application of his ideas on the Law and
Gospel which appeared to him fraught with the greatest
danger. That the contentions of the Antinomians were
largely his own, formulated anew, must be fairly evident to
all.1

Johann Agricola, the fickle and rebellious Wittenberg
professor, seized on Luther's denunciations of the Law, more
particularly subsequent to the spring of 1537, and built
them up into a fantastic Antinomian system, at the same
time rounding on Luther, and even more on the cautious
and reticent Melanchthon, for refusing to proceed along the
road on which they had ventured. In support of his views
he appealed to such sayings of Luther's, as, the Law " was
not made for the just," and, was "a gallows only meant for
thieves."

He showed that, whereas Luther had formerly refused to
recognise any repentance due to fear of the menaces of the
Law, he had come to hold up the terrors of the Law before
the eyes of sinners. As a matter of fact Luther did, at a
later date, teach that justifying faith was preceded by a
contrition produced by the Law ; such repentance due to
fear was excited by God Almighty in the man deprived of
moral freedom, as in a " materia passiva." — The following

1 Cp. the passages cited above, p. 9 ff., and vols. iii. and iv,
passim.

16 LUTHER THE REFORMER

theses were issued as Agricola's : "1. The Law [the
•Decalogue] does not deserve to be called the Word of God.
2. Even should you be a prostitute, a cuckold, an adulterer
or any other kind of sinner, yet, so long as you believe, you
are on the road to salvation. 3. If you are sunk in the
depths of sin, if only you believe, you are really in a state of
grace. 4. The Decalogue belongs to the petty sessions, not
to the pulpit. 11. The words of Peter : ' That by good
works you may make sure your calling and election '
[2 Peter i. 10] are all rubbish. 12. So soon -as you begin to
fancy that Christianity requires this or that, or that people
should be good, honest, moral, holy and chaste, you have
already rent asunder the Gospel [Luke, ch. vi.]."1

In his counter theses Luther indignantly rejected such
opinions : " the deduction is not valid," he says, for instance,
" when people make out, that what is not necessary for
justification, either at the outset, later, or at the end, should
not to be taught " (as obligatory), e.g. the keeping of the
Law, personal co-operation and good works. " Even
though the Law be useless to justification, still it does not
follow that it is to be made away with, or not to be taught."2

Luther was the more indignant at the open opposition
manifest in his own neighbourhood and at the yet worse
things that were being whispered, because he feared, that,
owing to the friendly understanding between Agricola,
Jacob Schenk and others, the new movement might extend
abroad. The doctrine, in its excesses, seemed to him as
compromising as the teaching of Carlstadt and the doings of
the fanatics in former days. In reality it did embody a

1 It was Luther himself who published the Aritinomian theses in two
series on Dec. 1, 1537. Cp. " Opp. lat. var.," 4, p. 420 sqq. The most
offensive of these theses Luther described as the outcome of Agricola's
teaching and attributed them to one of the latter's pupils ; Agricola,
however, refused to admit that the propositions were his. Cp. Kostlin-
Kawerau (2, p. 458), who, after attempting to harmonise Luther's earlier
and later teaching on the Law, proceeds : "He paid no heed to the fact
that Agricola was seeking to root sin out of the heart of the believer,
though in a way all his own, and which Luther distrusted, nor did he
make any distinction between what Agricola merely hinted at and
what others carried to extremes : in the one he already saw the other
embodied. All this was characteristic enough of Luther's way of
conducting controversy."

2 " Opp. lat. var.," 4, p. 434 (Thes. 17), 428 (Thes. 10).

JOHA.NN AGRICOLA 17

fanatical doctrine and an extremely dangerous pseudo-
theology ; in Antinomianism the pseudo-mystical ideas
concerning freedom and inner experience which from the
very beginning had brought Luther into conflict with the
" Law," culminated in a sort of up-to-date gnosticism.

We now find Luther, in the teeth of his previous state
ments, declaring that " Whoever makes away with the Law,
makes away with the Gospel."1 He says : " Agricola
perverts our doctrine, which is the solace of consciences,
and seeks by its means to set up the freedom of the flesh " ;2
the grace preached by Agricola was really nothing more than
immoral licence.3

The better to counter the new movement Luther at once
proceeded to modify his teaching concerning the Law. In
this wise Antinomianism exercised on him a restraining
influence, and was to some extent of service to his doctrine
and undertaking, warning him, as the fanatic movement
had done previously, of certain rocks to be avoided.

Luther now came to praise Melanchthon's view of the
Law, which hitherto had not appealed to him, and declared
in his Table-Talk : If the Law is done away with in the
Church, that will spell the end of all knowledge of sin.4

This last utterance, dating from March, 1537, is the first
to forebode the controversy about to commence, which was
to cause Luther so much anxiety but which at the same
time affords us so good an insight into his ethics and, no less,
into his character. Even more noteworthy are the two
sermons in which he expounds his standpoint as against that
of Agricola, whom, however, he does not name.5

The first step taken by Luther at the University against
the Antinomian movement was the Disputation of Dec. 18,
1537. For this he drew up a list of weighty theses. When
the Disputation was announced everyone was aware that it
was aimed at a member of the Wittenberg Professorial staff,
at one, moreover, whom Luther himself, as dean, had
authorised to deliver lectures on theology at Wittenberg.
When Agricola failed even to put in an appearance at the

1 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 352. 2 Ib. 3 Ib., p. 357.

4 16., p. 403.

5 " Werke," Erl. ed., 132, p. 153, Sermon of July 1, 5th Sunday after
Trinity, and ib., 142, p. 178, Sermon of Sep. 30, 18th Sunday after
Trinity. Cp. Buchwald, " Ungedruckte Predigten Luthers," 3,
p. 108 ff. Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 457.

v.— c

18 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Disputation, as though it in no way concerned him, and also
continued to " agitate secretly " against the Wittenberg
doctrine, Luther, in a letter addressed to Agricola on Jan. 6,
1538, withdrew from him his faculty to teach, and even
demanded that he should forswear theology altogether ("a
theologia in totum abstinere ") ; if he now wished to deliver
lectures he would have to ask permission " of the University "
(where Luther's influence was paramount).1 This was a
severe blow for Agricola and his family. His wife called on
Luther, dropped a humble curtsey and assured him that in
future her husband would do whatever he was told. This
seems to have mollified Luther. Agricola himself also
plucked up courage to go to him, only to be informed that he
would have to appear at the second Disputation on the
subject — for which Luther had drawn up a fresh set of
theses — and there make a public recantation. Driven into
a corner, Agricola agreed to these terms. At the second
Disputation (Jan. 12, 1538) he did, as a matter of fact,
give explanations deemed satisfactory by Luther, by whom
he was rewarded with an assurance of confidence. He
was, nevertheless, excluded from all academical office, and
though the Elector of Saxony permitted him to act as
preacher this sanction was not extended by Bugenhagen to
any preaching at Wittenberg.2 A third and fourth set of
theses drawn up by Luther,3 who could not do enough
against the new heresy, date from the interval previous to
the settlement, though no Disputation was held on them
that the peace might not be broken.

Agricola nevertheless was staunch in his contention, that,
in his earlier writings, Luther had expressed himself quite
differently, and this was a fact which it was difficult to
disprove.

On account of Agricola 's renewal of activity, Luther, on
Sep. 13, 1538, held another lengthy and severe Disputation
against him and his supporters, the " hotheads and avowed
hypocrites." For this occasion he produced a fifth and last
set of theses. He also insisted that his opponent should
publicly eat his words. This time Luther admitted that

1 " Brief wechsel," 11, p. 323.

2 Cp. Drews, " Disputationen Luthers," pp. 382, 388, 394 ; G.
Kawerau, " Job. Agricola," 1881, p. 194.

3 " Opp. lat. var.," 4, p. 430 sq.

JOHANN AGRICOLA 19

some of his own previous statements had been injudicious,
though he was disposed to excuse them. In the beginning
they had been preaching to people whose consciences were
troubled and who stood in need of a different kind of
language than those whose consciences had first to be
stirred up. Agricola, finding himself in danger of losing his
daily bread, yielded, and even agreed to allow Luther him
self to pen the draft of his retractation, hoping thus to get
off more easily.

Instead of this, and in order, as he said, to " paint him as
a cowardly, proud and godless man," Luther wrote a tract
(" Against the Antinomians ") addressed to the preacher
Caspar Giittel, which might take the place of the retractation
agreed upon.1 It was exceedingly rude to Agricola. It
represented him as a man of " unusual arrogance and pre
sumption," " who presumed to have a mind of his own, but
one that was really intent on self-glorification " ; he was a
standing proof that in the world " the devil liveth and
reigneth " ; by his means the devil was set on raising
another storm against Luther's Evangel, like those others
raised by Carlstadt, Miinzer, the Anabaptists and so forth.2
In spite of all this the writing, according to a statement
made by its author to Melanchthon, was all too mild (" tarn
levis fui "), particularly now that Agricola's great "ob
stinacy " was becoming so patent.3

Luther even spoke of the excommunication which should
be launched against so contumacious a man. As a penalty
he caused him to be excluded from among the candidates
for the office of Dean, and when Agricola complained to the
Rector and to Bugenhagen of Luther's " tyranny " both
refused to listen to him.4

In the meantime Agricola expressed his complete sub
mission in a printed statement, which, however, was
probably not meant seriously, and thereupon, on Feb. 7,
1539, was nominated by the Elector a member of the
Consistory. He at once profited by this mark of favour
to present at Court a written complaint against Luther,

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 32, p. 1 ff. (publ. early in 1539). Also " Briefe,"
ed. De Wette, 5, p. 147 ff.

2 " Briefe," ib., p. 154.

3 To Melanchthon, Feb. 2, 1539, " Brief wechsel," 12, p. 84.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 61, p. 35 (Table-Talk). Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau,
2, p. 462 f.

20 LUTHER THE REFORMER

referring particularly to the scurrilous circular letter sent to
Caspar Giittel. He protested that, for wellnigh three years,
he had submitted to being trodden under foot by Luther,
and had slunk along at his heels like a wretched cur, though
there had been no end to the insult and abuse heaped upon
him. What Luther reproached him with he had never
taught. The latter had accused him of many things which
he " neither would, could nor might admit."1

Luther in his turn, in a writing, appealed to the Elector
and his supreme tribunal. In vigorous language he ex
plained to the Court, utterly incapable though it was of
deciding on so delicate a question, why he had been obliged to
withstand the false opinions of his opponent which the Bible
condemned. Agricola had dared to call Luther's doctrine
unclean, " a doctrine on behalf of which our beloved Prince
and Lord wagered and imperilled land and subjects, life
and limb, not to speak of his soul and ours." In other words,
to differ from Luther was high treason against the sovereign
who agreed with him. He sneers at Agricola in a tone
which shows how great licence he allowed himself in his
dealings with the Elector : Agricola had drawn up a
Catechism, best nicknamed a " Cackism " ; Master Grickel
was ridden by an angry imp, etc. So far was he from
offering any excuse for his virulence against Agricola that he
even expressed his regret for having been " so friendly and
gentle."2

To the same authority, as though to it belonged judgment
in ecclesiastical matters, Melanchthon, Jonas, Bugenhagen
and Amsdorf sent a joint memorandum in which they
recommended a truce, " somewhat timidly pointing out to
the Elector, that Luther was hardly a man who could be
expected to retract."3

The Court Councillors now took the whole matter into
their hands and it was settled to lodge a formal suit against
Agricola. The latter, however, accepted a call from Elector
Joachim of Brandenburg, to act as Court preacher, and, in
spite of having entered into recognisances not to quit the

1 (In March, 1540) see C. E. Forstemann, "N. Urkundenbuch zur
Gesch. der Kirchenreformation," 1, 1842, reprinted, p. 317 ff.

2 /&., p. 321 ff.; also in "Werke," ed. Walch, 20, p. 2061 ff., and
" Brief e," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 ff.

3 Forstemann, ib., p. 325. The quotation is from G. Kawerau,
" Joh. Agricola," " KE. f. prot. Theol."

JOHANN AGRICOLA 21

town, he made haste to get himself gone to his new post in
Berlin (Aug., 1540). On a summons from Wittenberg, and
seeing that, unless he made peace with Luther, he could do
nothing at Berlin, he consented to issue a circular letter to
the preachers, magistrates and congregation of Eisleben1
" which might have satisfied even Luther's exorbitant
demands."2 He explained that he had in the meantime
thought better of the points under discussion, and even
promised " to believe and teach as the Church at Witten
berg believes and teaches."

In 1545, when he came to Wittenberg with his wife and
daughter, Luther, who still bore him' a grudge, whilst
allowing them to pay him a visit, refused to see Agricola
himself. On another occasion it was only thanks to the
friendly intervention of Catherine Bora that Luther con
sented to glance at a kindly letter from him, but of any
reconciliation he would not hear. Regarding this last inci
dent we have a note of Agricola 's own : " Domina Ketha,
rectrix cceli et terrce, luno coniunx et soror lovis, who rules
her husband as she wills, has for once in a way spoken a
good word on my behalf. Jonas likewise did the same." 3

Luther's hostility continued to the day of his death. He
found justification for his harshness and for his refusal to be
reconciled in the evident inconstancy and turbulence of his
opponent. For a while, too, he was disposed to credit the
news that Antinomianism was on the increase in Saxony,
Thuringia and elsewhere.

Not only was Agricola's fickleness not calculated to
inspire confidence, but his life also left much to be desired
from the moral standpoint. Though Luther was perhaps
unaware of it, we learn from Agricola's own private Notes,
that the " vices in which the young take delight " had
assailed him in riper years even more strongly than in his
youth. Seckendorff also implies that he did not lead a
" regular life."4

In 1547 Agricola, together with Julius Pflug, Bishop of
Naumburg, and Helding, auxiliary of Mayence, drew up the
Augsburg Interim. As General Superintendent of the

1 Forstemann, ib., p. 349. 2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 464.

3 E. Kroker, " Katharina von Bora," 1906, p. 280, from Agricola's
Notes, pub. by E. Thiele.

4 Cp. Kawerau in the Article referred to above, p. 20, n. 3.

22 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Brandenburg district and at the invitation of his Elector he
assisted in the following year at the religious Conferences of
the Saxon theologians. He died at Berlin, Sep. 22, 1566,
of a disease resulting from the plague.

Of the feeling called forth in circles friendly to Luther by
Agricola's part in the Interim we have proof in the preface which
introduces in the edition of 1549 Luther's letter of 1539 to the
Saxon Court. Here we read : If the Eisleben fellow (Agricola)
" was ever a dissolute sharper, who secretly promoted false
doctrine and made use of the favour and applause of the pious
as a cloak for his knavery," much more has this now become
apparent by his outcry concerning the Interim and the alleged
good it does. The editors recall the fact, that " Our worthy father
in God, Dr. Martin Luther of happy memory, shortly before his
end, in the presence of Dr. Pommer, Philip, Creutziger, Major,
Jonas and D. Paulus Benedictus " spoke as follows : " Eisleben
(Agricola) is not merely ridden by the devil but the devil himself
lodges in him." In proof of the latter statement they add, that
trustworthy persons, who had good grounds for their opinion,
had declared, that " it was the simple truth that devils had visibly
appeared in Eisleben's house and study, and at times had made
a great disturbance and clatter ; whence it is clear that he is the
devil's own in body and soul." " The truth," they conclude, " is
clear and manifest. God gives us warnings enough in the writings
of pious and learned persons and also by signs in the sky and in
the waters. Let whoever wills be admonished and warned. For
to each one it is a matter of life eternal ; to which may God assist
us through Christ our Lord, Amen."1

A writing of Melanchthon's, dating from the last months of his
life and brought to light only in 1894, gives further information
concerning a later phase of the Antinomian controversy as fought
out between Agricola and Melanchthon. 2

Melanchthon, for all his supposed kindliness, here empties the
vials of his wrath on Johann Agricola because the latter had
vehemently assailed his thesis " Bona opera sunt necessaria."
As a matter of fact, so he writes, he bothered himself as little
about Agricola's " preaching, slander, abuse, insistence and
threats " as about the " cackle of some crazy gander." But
Christian people were becoming scandalised at " this grand
preacher of blasphemy " and were beginning to suspect his own
(Melanchthon's) faith. Hence he would have them know that
Agricola's component parts were an " asinine righteousness, a
superstitious arrogance and an Epicurean belly-service." To his
thesis he could not but adhere to his last breath, even were he to
be torn to pieces with red-hot pincers. He had refrained from
adding the words " ad salutem " after " necessaria " lest the

1 " Luthers Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 256 fL

2 Melanchthon to Willibald Ransberck (Ramsbeck), Jan. 26, 1560,
publ. by Nic. Miiller in " Zeitschr. fur KG.," 14, 1894, p. 139.

JOHANN AGRICOLA 23

unwary should think of some merit. The " ad salutem " was an
addition of Agricola's, that " foolish man," who had thrust it on
him by means of a " shameless and barefaced lie." He is anxious
to win his spurs off the Lutherans. Yet donkeys of his ilk d^
understand nothing in the matter, and God will " punish these
blasphemers and disturbers of the Churches. But in order that
" a final end may at length be put to the evil doing, slander, abuse
and cavilling it will," he says, " be necessary for God to send the
Turk ; nothing else will help in such a case." Melanchthon com
pares himself to Joseph, who was sold by his brethren. If Joseph
had to endure this "in the first Church," what then " will be my
fate in the extreme old age of this mad world ( ' extrema mundi
delira senecta ') when licence wanders abroad unrestrained to
sully everything and when such unspeakably cruel hypocrites
control our destinies ? I can only pray to God that He will
deign to come to the aid of His Church and graciously heal all
the gaping wounds dealt her by her foes. Amen."

A certain reaction against the Antinomian tendency, is,
as already explained, noticeable in Luther's latter years ;
at least he felt called upon to revise a little his former stand
point with regard to the Law, the motive of fear, indifference
to sin and so forth, and to remove it from the danger of
abuse. He was also at pains to contradict the view that
his doctrine of faith involved an abrogation of the Law.
" The fools do not know," he remarked, for instance, allud
ing to Jacob Schenk, " all that faith has to do."1

In his controversy with Agricola we can detect a tendency
on his part " to revert to Melanchthon's doctrine concerning
repentance."2 He insisted far more strongly than before3
on the necessity of preaching the Law in order to arouse
contrition ; he even went so far along Catholic lines as to
assert, that " Penance is sorrow for sin with the resolve to
lead a better life."4 He also admitted, that, at the outset,
he had said things which the Antinomians now urged
against the Law, though he also strove to show that he had
taken pains to qualify and safeguard what he had said. Nor
indeed can Luther ever have expected that all the strong
things he had once hurled against the Law and its demands
would ever be used to build up a new moral theology.

And yet, even at the height of the Antinomian contro-

1 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 90. For other statements of Luther's
see our vol. iii., p. 401. 2 Loofs, ib., p. 858.

3 On Luther's attitude towards penance see our vol. iii., pp. 184 ff,.
196. 4 " Opp. lat. var.," 4, p. 424.

24 LUTHER THE REFORMER

versy, he stood firmly by his thesis regarding the Law, fear
and contrition, viz. that " Whoever seeks to be led to
repentance by the Law, will never attain to it, but, on the
contrary, will only turn his back on it the more " j1 to this
he was ever true.

"Luther," says Adolf Harnack, "could never doubt that only
the Christian who has been vanquished by the Gospel is capable of
true repentance, and that the Law can work no real repentance."2
The fact however remains, that, at least if we take his words as
they stand, we do find in Luther a doctrine of repentance which
does not claim faith in the forgiveness of sins so exclusively as
its source.3 The fact is that his statements do not tally.4 Other
Protestant theologians will have it that no change took place in
Luther's views on penance,5 or at least that the attempts so far
made to solve the problem are not satisfactory.6 Stress should,
however, be laid on the fact, that, during his contest with Anti-
nomiariism Luther insisted that it was necessary " to drive men
to penance even by the terrors of the Law,"7 and that, alluding
to his earlier statements, he admits having had much to learn :
" I have been made to experience the words of St. Peter, ' Grow
in the knowledge of the Lord.' '

Of the converted, i.e. of those justified by the certainty of
salvation, he says in 1538 in his Disputations against Agricola :
The pious Christian as such " is dead to the Law and serves it
not, but lies in the bosom of grace, secure in the righteousness
imputed to him by God. . . . But, so far as he is still in the
flesh, he serves the law of sin, repulsive as it may sound that a
saint should be subject to the law of sin."8 If Luther finds in the
saint or devout man such a double life, a free man side by side
with a slave, holiness side by side with sin, this is on account of
the concupiscence, or as Luther says elsewhere, original sin,
which still persists, and the results of which he regarded as really
sinful in God's sight.

Elsewhere in the same Disputations he speaks of the Law as
contemptuously as ever : " The LawT can work in the soul nothing
but wanhope ; it fills us with shame ; to lead us to seek God is
not in the nature and might of the Law ; this is the doing of

1 See above, p. 11, n. 2. 2 " DG.," 34, p. 842.

3 Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 860, n. 2 and 4 ; 790, n. 7, and Harnack, ib.

4 Harnack (loc. cit.) points out that Luther's statements on the
subject do not agree when examined in detail.

5 E.g., Lipsius, "Luthers Lehre von der Busse," 1892.

6 E.g., Galley, " Die Busslehre Luthers und ihre Darstellung in
neuester Zeit," 1900.

7 To the latter passage (" Werke," Erl. ed., 32, p. 7) E. F. Fischer
draws attention (" Luthers Sermo de poenitentia von 1518," 1906,
p. 36). Galley (loc. cit., p. 20) had also referred to the same as being
a further development of Luther's doctrine on penance. — On Luther's
shifting attitude in regard to the motive of fear see our vol. iv., p. 455 f.

8 " Disputation.es," ed. Drews, p. 452.

CERTAINTY OF SALVATION 25

".another fellow," viz. of the Gospel with its preaching of for
giveness of sins in Christ. 1 It is true he adds in a kindlier vein :
" The Law ought not so greatly to terrify those who are justified
( ' nee deberet ita terrere iustificatos ' ) for it is already much chas
tened by our justification in Christ. But the devil conies and
makes the Law harsh and repellent to those who are justified.
Thus, through the devil's fault, many are filled with fear who have
no reason to fear. But [and now follows the repudiation of the
extreme theories of the Antinomians], the Law is not on that
account abolished in the Church, or its preaching suppressed ;
for even the pious have some remnant of sin abiding in their
flesh, which must be purified by the Law. ... To them, how
ever, the Law must be preached under a milder form ; they should
be admonished in this wise : You are now washed clean in the
Blood of Christ. Yield therefore your bodies to serve justice
and lay aside the lusts of the flesh that you may not become like
to the world. Be zealous for the righteousness of good works."
There too he also teaches how the " Law " must be brought
home to hardened sinners. In their case no " mitigation " is
allowable. On the contrary, they are to be told : You will be
damned, God hates you, you are full of unrighteousness, your lot
is that of Cain, etc. For, " before Justification, the Law rules,
and terrifies all who come in contact with it, it convicts and
condemns."2

Among the most instructive utterances touching the Anti-
nomians is the following one on sin, more particularly on breach
of wedlock, which may be given here as amplifying Luther's
statements on the subject recorded in our vol. iii. (pp. 245, 256 f.,
etc.) : The Antinomians taught, so he says, that, if a man had
broken wedlock, he had only to believe (" tantum ut crederet ") and
he would find a Gracious God. But surely that was no Church
where so horrible a doctrine (" horribilis vox ") was heard. On
the contrary what was to be taught was, that, in the first place,
there were adulterers and other sinners who acknowledged their
sin, made good resolutions against it and possessed real faith,
such as these found mercy with God. In the second place, how
ever, there were others who neither repented of their sin nor
wished to forsake it ; such men had no faith, and a preacher who
should discourse to them concerning faith (i.e. fiducial faith)
would merely be seducing and deceiving them.

4. The Certainty of Salvation and its relation to Morality

How did Luther square his system of morality with his
principal doctrine of Faith and Justification, and where did
he find any ground for the performance of good works ?

In the main he made everything to proceed from and rest
upon a firm, personal certainty of salvation. The artificial

1 Ib., p. 402. 2 J6., pp. 402-404.

26 LUTHER THE REFORMER

system thus built up, so far as it is entitled to be called a
system at all, requires only to be set forth in order to be
appreciated as it deserves. It will be our duty to consider
Luther's various statements, and finally his own summary,
made late in life, of the conclusions he had reached.

Certainty of Salvation as the cause and aim of True Morality.
The Psychological Explanation

Quite early Luther had declared : " The ' fides specialist
or assurance of salvation, of itself impels man to true
morality." For, " faith brings along with it love, peace,
joy and hope. ... In this faith all works are equal and one
as good as the other, and any difference between works
disappears, whether they be great or small, short or long,
few or many ; for works are not pleasing [to God] in them
selves but on account of faith. ... A Christian who lives in
this faith has no need to be taught good works, but, what
ever occurs to him, that he does, and everything is well
done." Such are his words in his " Sermon von den gut en
Wercken " to Duke Johann of Saxony in 1520.1

He frequently repeats, that " Faith brings love along with
it," which impels us to do good.

He enlarges on this in the festival sermons in his Church-
Postils, and says : When I am made aware by faith, that,
through the Son of God Who died for me, I am able to
" resist and flaunt sin, death, devil, hell and every ill, then
I cannot but love Him in return and be well disposed
towards Him, keeping His commandments and doing
lovingly and gladly everything He asks " ; the heart will
then show itself full " of gratitude and love. But, seeing
that God stands in no need of our works and that He has
not commanded us to do anything else for Him but to
praise and thank Him, therefore such a man must proceed
to devote himself entirely to his neighbour, to serve, help
and counsel him freely and without reward."2

All this, as Luther says in his " Von der Freyheyt eynes
Christen Menschen," must be performed " by a free, willing,
cheerful and unrequited serving of our neighbour " ;3 it

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 206 f. ; Erl. ed., 162, p. 127.

2 16., Erl. ed., 152, p. 40.

3 76., Weim. ed., 7, p. 36 ; Erl. ed., 27, p. 196.

CERTAINTY OF SALVATION 27

must be done " cheerfully and gladly for Christ's sake Who
has done so much for us."1 " That same Law which once
was hateful to free-will," he says in his Commentary on
Galatians, " now [i.e. after we have received the faith and
assurance of salvation] becomes quite pleasant since love is
poured into our hearts by the Holy Ghost. . . . We now
are lovers of the Law."2 From the wondrous well-spring of
the imputed merits of Christ there comes first and foremost
prayer ; if only we cling " trustfully to the promise of
grace," then " the heart will unceasingly beat and pulsate
to such prayers as the following : O, beloved Father, may
Thy Name be hallowed, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be
done."3 But all is not prayer and holy desire ; even when
the " soul has been cleansed by faith," the Christian still
must struggle against sin and against the body " in order
to deaden its wantonness."4 The Christian will set himself
to acquire chastity ; "in this work a good, strong faith is
of great help, more so here than anything else." And why ?
Because whoever is assured of salvation in Christ and
" enjoys the grace of God, also delights in spiritual purity.
. . . Under such a faith the Spirit without doubt will tell
him how to avoid evil thoughts and everything opposed to
chastity. For as faith in the Divine mercy persists and
works all good, so also it never ceases to inform us of all that
is pleasing or displeasing to God."5

Whence does our will derive the ability and strength to
wage this struggle to the end ? Only from the assurance of
salvation, from its unshaken awareness that it has indeed a
Gracious God. For this certainty of faith sets one free,
first of all from those anxieties with regard to one's salva
tion with which the righteous-by-works are plagued and
thus allows one to devote time and strength to doing what
is good ; secondly this faith in one's salvation teaches one how
to overcome the difficulties that stand in one's way.6

There was, however, an objection raised against Luther

1 Ib., p. 30=189.

2 " Comm. in ep. ad. Gal.," 3, p. 365 (Irmischer).

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 49, p. 114 f., Exposition of John xiv.-xvi.

4 " Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 30 f. ; Erl. ed., 27, p. 189 f.

5 Ib., 6, p. 269 f. = 162, p. 212, " Sermon von den guten Wercken,"
1520.

6 Owe account is from Walther (above, p. 14, n. 1), p. 75 ff. His
faithful rendering of Luther's thought shows how actual grace is
excluded.

28 LUTHER THE REFORMER

by his contemporaries and which even presented itself to his
own mind : Why should a lifelong struggle and the per
formance of good works be requisite for a salvation of which
we are already certain ? It was re-formulated even by
Albert Ritschl, in whose work, " Rechtfertigung und
Versohnung," we find the words : "If one asks why God,
Who makes salvation to depend on Justification by faith,
prescribes good works at all, the arbitrary character of the
assumption becomes quite evident."1 In Luther's own
writings we repeatedly hear the same stricture voiced : "If
sin is forgiven me gratuitously by God's Mercy and is
blotted out in baptism, then there is nothing for me to do."
People say, " If faith is everything and suffices of itself to
make us pious, why then are good works enjoined ? "2

In order to render Luther's meaning adequately we must
emphasise his leading answer to such objections. He is
determined to insist on good works, because, as he says,
they are of the utmost importance to the one thing on which
everything else depends, viz. to faith and the assurance of
salvation.3

In his " Sermon von den guten Wercken," which deserves to
be taken as conclusive, he declares outright that all good works
are ordained — for the sake of faith. " Such works and sufferings
must be performed in faith and in firm trust in the Divine mercy,
in order that, as already stated, all works may come under the
first commandment and under faith, and that they may serve
to exercise and strengthen faith, on account of which all the
other commandments and works are demanded."4 Hence
morality is necessary, not primarily in order to please God, to
obey Him and thus to work out our salvation, but in order to
strengthen our " fides specialis " in our own salvation, which
then does all the needful.5 It is necessary, as Luther says else
where, in order to provide a man with a reassuring token of the
reality of his " fides specialis " ; he may for instance be tempted
to doubt whether he possesses this saving gift of God, though the
very doubt already spells its destruction ; hence let him look at
his works ; if they are good, they will tell him at the dread hour

34, p. 460.

"Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 29 f. ; Erl. ed., 27, p. 188. "Von der
Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen." Cp. ib., Erl. ed., 72, p. 257.

Walther, ib., p. 99.

" Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 249 ; Erl. ed., 162, p. 184.

Cp. " Brief e," ed. De Wette, where the idea that faith " then does
all the needful," and that works are a natural product of faith is summed
up thus : " Opera propter fidem fiunt."

CERTAINTY OF SALVATION 29

of death: Yes, you have the "faith."1 Strangely enough he
also takes the Bible passages which deal with works performed
under grace as referring to faith, e.g. " If thou wilt enter into
life keep the commandments " (Mt. xix. 17) and, " By good works
make your calling and election sure " (2 Peter i. 10). The latter
exhortation of St. Peter signifies according to Luther's exegesis :
" Take care to strengthen your faith," from the works " you may
see whether you have the faith."2 According to St. Peter
you are to seek in works merely " a sign and token that the faith
is there " ; his meaning is not that you " are to do good works
in order that you may secure your election." " We are not to
fancy that thereby we can become pious."3

This thought is supplemented by another frequent exhortation
of Luther's which concerns the consciousness of sin persisting
even after " justification." The sense of sin has, according to
him, no other purpose than to strengthen us in our trustful cling
ing to Christ, for as no one's faith is perfect we are ever called
upon to fortify it, in which we are aided by this anxiety concern
ing sin : " Though we still feel sin within us this is merely to
drive us to faith and make our faith stronger, so that despite our
feeling we may accept the Word and cling with all our heart and
conscience to Christ alone," in other words, to follow Luther's
own example amidst the pangs of conscience that had plunged
him into " death and hell."4 " Thus does faith, against all feeling
and reason, lead us quietly through sin, through death and
through hell." " The more faith waxes, the more the feeling
diminishes, and vice versa. Sins still persist within us, e.g. pride,
avarice, anger and so on and so forth, but only in order to move
us to faith." He refrains from adducing from Holy. Scripture
any proof in support of so strange a theory, but proceeds to sing
a paean on faith " in order that faith may increase from day to
day until man at length becomes a Christian through and through,
keeps the real Sabbath, and creeps, skin, hair and all, into
Christ."5 The Christian, by accustoming himself to trust in the
pardoning grace of Christ and by fortifying himself in this faith,
becomes at length " one paste with Christ."6

Hence the '"''fides specialist as just explained, seems to be
the chief ethical aim of life.7 This is why it is so necessary
to strengthen it by works, and so essential to beat down all
anxieties of conscience.

1 Cp. " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 386 ; Erl. ed., 51, p. 479, in 1523,
on 1 Peter iv. 19. Cp. also Erl. ed., 182, pp. 330, 333 f., in 1532, on
1 John iv. 17.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 92, p. 273. 3 /&., 132, p. 97.

4 Cp. our vol. iv., p. 442.

5 " Werke," Erl. ed., II2, p. 219 f. 6 Ib., 142, p. 257.

7 Cp. Loofs, " DG.," 4, p. 737. Hence Luther also says : " Dum
bonus aut malus quisquam efficitur, non hoc ab operibus, sed a fide vel
incredulitate-oritur." " Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 62 ; " Opp. lat. var .,"
4, p. 239.

30 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Here Luther is speaking from his own inward experience.
He says : " Thus must the conscience be lulled to rest and
made content, thus must all the waves and billows subside.
. . . Our sins towered mountain-high about us and would
fain have made us despair, but in the end they are calmed,
and settle down, and soon are seen no longer."1 It was only
very late in his life that Luther reached a state of compara
tive calm, a calm moreover best to be compared with the
utter weariness of a man worn out by fatigue.2

Luther's Last Sermons at Eisleben on the Great Questions
of Morality

In the four sermons he preached at Eisleben — the last he
ever delivered — Luther gives utterance to certain leading
thoughts quite peculiar to himself regarding morality and
the " fides specialist These utterances, under the circum
stances to be regarded as the ripest fruit of his reflection,
must be taken in conjunction with other statements made
by him in his old age. They illustrate even more clearly
than what has gone before the cardinal point of his teaching
now under discussion, which, even more than any other, has
had the bad luck to be so often wrongly presented by
combatants on either side.

Luther's four sermons at Eisleben, which practically
constitute his Last Will and Testament of his views on
faith and good works, were delivered before a great con
course of people. A note on one delivered on Feb. 2, 1546,
tells us : "So great was the number of listeners collected
from the surrounding neighbourhood, market-places and
viHages, that even Paul himself were he to come preaching
could hardly expect a larger audience."3 For the reports of
his sermons we are indebted to the pen of his pupil and
companion on his journey, Johann Aurifaber.4 From their
contents we can see how much Luther was accustomed to
adapt himself to his hearers and to the conditions prevailing
in the district where he preached. The great indulgence

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., II2, p. 220. 2 See below, ch. xxxii., 6.

3 Printed, in " Werke," Erl. ed., 202, 2, p. 524.

4 The first revised by Cruciger. Aurifaber published his notes four
months after the sermons, which, as the Preface points out, " might
well be taken as a standing witness to his [Luther's] doctrine."
" Werke," Erl. ed., 202, 2, p. 501.

THE EISLEBEN SERMONS 31

then extended to the Jews in that territory of the Counts of
Mansfeld ; the religious scepticism shared or favoured by
certain people at the Court; and, in particular, the moral
licence — which, taking its cue from Luther's teaching,
argued : " Well and good, I will sin lustily since sin has
been taken away and can no longer damn me," as he him
self relates in the third sermon, x — all this lends colour to the
background of these addresses delivered at Eisleben. In
particular the third sermon, on the parable of the cockle
(Mt. xiii. 24-30), is well worth notice. It speaks of the weeds
which infest the Church and of those which spring up in our
selves ; in the latter connection Luther expatiates on the lead
ing principles of his ethics, on faith, sin and good works, and
concludes by telling the Christian how he must live and
" grow in faith and the spirit."2 One cannot but acknow
ledge the force with which the preacher, who was even then
suffering acutely, speaks on behalf of good works and the
struggle against sin. What he says is, however, tainted by
his own peculiar views.

" God forgives sin in that He does not impute it. ... But
from this it does not follow that you are without sin, although it
is already forgiven ; for in yourself you feel no hearty desire to
obey God, to go to the sacrament or to hear God's Word. Do
you perhaps imagine that this is no sin, or mere child's play ? "
Hence, he concludes, we must pray daily " for forgiveness and
never cease to fight against ourselves and not give the rein to
our sinful inclinations and lusts, nor obey them contrary to the
dictates of conscience, but rather weaken and deaden sin ever
more and more ; for sin must not merely be forgiven but verily
swept away and destroyed."3

He exhorts his hearers to struggle against sin, whether
original or actual sin, and does so in words which place the
" fides specialis " in the first place and impose the obligation
of a painful and laborious warfare which contrasts strongly
with the spontaneous joy of the just in doing what is good,
elsewhere taken for granted by Luther.

" Our doctrine as to how we are to deal with our own unclean-
ness and sin is briefly this : Believe in Jesus Christ and your sins
are forgiven ; then avoid and withstand sin, wage a hand-to-
land fight with it, do not allow it its way, do not hate or cheat
your neighbour," etc.4

1 "Werke," Erl. ed., ib,. p. 551. z Ib., p. 552.

3 Ib., p. 551. * Ib., p. 554.

32 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Such admonitions strenuously to strive against sin involun
tarily recall some very different assurances of his, viz. that the
man who has once laid hold on righteousness by faith, at once
and of his own accord does what is good : " Hence from faith
there springs love and joy in God and a free and willing service
of our neighbour out of simple love."

Elsewhere too he says, " Good works are performed by faith
and out of our heartfelt joy that we have through Christ obtained
the remission of our sins. . . . Interiorly everything is sweet
and delicious, and hence we do and suffer all things gladly."1
And again, just as we eat and drink naturally, so also to do what
is good comes naturally to the believer ; the word is fulfilled :
Only believe and you will do all things of your own accord ; 2 as
a good tree must bring forth good fruit and cannot do otherwise,
so, where there is faith, good works there must also be.3 He
speaks of this as a " necessitas immutdbilitatis " and as a " neces-
sitas gratuita," no less necessary than that the sun must shine.
In 1536 he even declared in an instruction to Melanchthon that
it was not right to say that a believer should do good works,
because he can't help performing them ; who thinks of ordering
" the sun to shine, a good tree to bring forth good fruit, or three
and seven to make ten ? "4

Of this curious idealism, first noticed in his "Von der Freyheyt
eynes Christen Menschen," we find traces in Luther till the very
end of his life.5 In later life, however, he either altered it a little
or was less prone to insist on it in and out of season. This was
due to his unfortunate experiences to the contrary ; as a matter
of fact faith failed to produce the effects expected, and only in
rare instances and at its very best was it as fruitful as Luther
wished. The truth is he had overrated it, obviously misled by
his enthusiasm for his alleged discovery of the power of faith for
justification.

He was also fond of saying — and of this assurance we find
an echo in his last sermon — that a true and lively faith should
govern even our feeling, and as we are so little conscious of
such a feeling and impulse to what is good, it follows that
we but seldom have this faith, i.e. this lively certainty of
salvation.

When a Christian is lazy, starts thinking he possesses every
thing and refuses to grow and increase, then " neither has he
earnestness nor a true faith." Even the just are conscious of sin

1 " Comm. on Gal.," 1, p. 196 (Irmischer).

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 559 ; Erl. ed., 122, p. 175. " Comm.
on Gal." (Irmischer), 1, p. 196.

3 Ib., Erl. ed., 172, p. 94 ; 49, p. 348. 4 Ib., 58, pp. 343, 347.
5 See above, p. 26 f., and vol. ii., p. 27 ff.

THE EISLEBEN SERMONS 33

(i.e. original sin), but they resist it ; but where there is a distaste
for the beloved Word of God there can be " no real faith." Luther,
to the detriment of his ethics, was disposed to relegate faith too
much to the region of feeling and personal experience ; this,
however, he could scarcely avoid since his was a " fides specialis "
in one's own personal salvation. True religion, in his opinion, is
ever to rejoice and be glad by reason of the forgiveness of sins
and cheerfully to run the way of God's service ; this idea is
prominent in his third sermon at Eisleben. The right faith " is
toothsome and lively ; it consoles and gladdens."1 " It bores
its way into the heart and brings comfort and cheer " ; "we feel
glad and ready for anything."2

But because the actual facts and his experience failed to tally
with his views, Luther, as already explained, had recourse to a
convenient expedient ; towards the close of his life we frequently
hear him speaking as follows : Unfortunately we have not yet
got this faith, for " we do not possess in our hearts, and cannot
acquire, that joy which we would gladly feel " ; thus we become
conscious how the " old Adam, sin and our sinful nature, still
persist within us ; this it is that forces you and me to fail in our
faith."3 "Even great saints do not always feel that joy and
might, and we others, owing to our unbelief, cannot attain to
this exalted consolation and strength . . . and even though we
would gladly believe, yet we cannot make our faith as strong as
we ought."4 He vouchsafes no answer to the objection : But
why then set up aims that cannot be reached ; why make the
starting-point consist in a " faith " of which man, owing to
original sin, can only attain to a shadow, except perhaps in the
rare instances of martyrs, or divinely endowed saints ?

Luther, when insisting so strongly that good works must
follow " faith," as a moral incentive to such works also
refers incidentally to our duty of gratitude and lo.ve in
return for this faith bestowed on us.

Thus in the Eisleben sermons he invites the believer, the
better to arouse himself to good works, to address God in
this way : " Heavenly Father, there is no doubt that Thou
hast given Thy Son for the forgiveness of my sins. There
fore will I thank God for this during my whole life, and
praise and exalt Him, and no longer steal, practise usury or
be miserly, proud or jealous. ... If you rightly believe,"
he continues, " that God has sent you His Son, you will,
like a fruitful tree, bring forth finer and finer blossoms the
older you grow."5 In what follows he is at pains to show
that good works will depend on the constant putting into

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 202, 2, p. 553. 2 /&., p. 548.

3 Ib. 4 /&., p. 549. * /&., p. 554.

v. — D

34 LUTHER THE REFORMER

practice of the " faith " ; the Justification that is won by
the " fides specialis " is insufficient, in spite of all the
comfort it brings ; rather we must be mindful of the saying of
St. Paul : " If by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the
flesh you shall live." " But if your flesh won't do it, then
leave it to the Holy Ghost."1

The motive for good works which Luther here advances,
viz. " To thank God, to praise and extol Him,"2 is worthy of
special attention ; it is the only real one he furnishes either
here or elsewhere. Owing to the love of God which arises
in the heart at the thought of His benefits we must rouse
ourselves to serve Him. The idea is a grand one and had
always appealed to the noblest spirits in the Church before
Luther's day. It is, however, a very different thing to
represent this motive of perfect love as the exclusive and
only true incentive to doing what is pleasing to God. Yet
throughout Luther's teaching this is depicted as the
general, necessary and only motive. " From faith and the
Holy Ghost necessarily comes the love of God, and together
with it love of our neighbour and every good work."3 When
I realise by faith that God has sent His Son for my sake,
etc., says Luther, in his Church-Postils, " I cannot do
otherwise than love Him in return, do His behests and keep
His commandments."4 This love, however, as he expressly
states, must be altogether unselfish, i.e. must be what the
Old Testament calls a " whole-hearted love," which in turn
" presupposes perfect self-denial."5

It is plain that we have here an echo of the mysticism
which had at one time held him in thrall ; 6 but his extrava
gant idealism was making demands which ordinary Christians
either never, or only very seldom, could attain to.

The olden Church set up before the faithful a number of
motives adapted to rouse them to do good works ; such
motives she found in the holy fear of God and His chastise
ments, in the hope of temporal or everlasting reward ; in the
need of making satisfaction for sin committed, or, finally,
for those who had advanced furthest, in the love of God,
whether as the most perfect Being and deserving of all our

1 Ib., p. 555.

2 Cp. p. 552 : " Help me that I may, with gratitude, praise and
exalt Thy Son." 3 Kostlin's summary, ib., p. 206.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 152, p. 40. Cp. " Opp. lat. exeg.," 13, p. 144.
6 Kostlin, ib., p. 207. 6 Cp. vol. i., passim.

THE EISLEBEN SERMONS 35

love, or on account of the benefits received from Him ; she
invited people to weld all these various motives into one
strong bond ; those whose dispositions were less exalted
she strove to animate with the higher motives of love, so
far as the weakness of human nature allowed. Luther, on
the contrary, in the case of the righteous already assured
of salvation, not only excluded every motive other than
love, but also, quite unjustifiably, refused to hear of any
love save that arising from gratitude for the redemption and
the faith. " To love God," in his eyes, " is nothing more
than to be grateful for the benefit bestowed " (through the
redemption).1 And, again, he imputes such power to this
sadly curtailed motive of love, or rather gratitude, that it
is his only prescription, even for those who are so cold-
hearted that the Word of God " comes in at one ear and
goes out at the other," and who hear of the death of Christ
-with as little devotion as though they had been told, " that
the Turks had beaten the Sultan, or some other such tit-bit
of news."2

Some notable Omissions of Luther's in the above Sermons
on Morality

Hitherto we have been considering what Luther had to
say on the question of faith and morality in his last sermons.
It remains to point out what he did not say, and what, on
account of his own doctrines, it was impossible for him to
say ; as descriptive of his ethics the latter is perhaps of even
greater importance.

In the first place he says nothing of the supernatural life, which,
according to the ancient teaching of the Church, begins with
the infusion of sanctifying grace in the soul of the man who is
justified. As we know, he would not hear of this new and vital
principle in the righteous, which indeed was incompatible with
his theory of the mere non-imputation of sin. Further, he also
ignores the so-called " infused virtues " whence, with the help
of actual grace, springs the new motive force of the man received
into the Divine sonship. By his denial of the complete renewal
of the inner man he placed himself in opposition to the ancient
witnesses of Christendom, as Protestant historians of dogma
now admit.3

1 Kostlin, ib., p. 204. - In the Eisleben Sermons, p. 548.

3 On Luther's attitude towards the supernatural moral order, see
xxix., 5.

36 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Secondly, he dismisses in silence the so-called actual grace.
Not even in answering the question as to the source whence the
believer draws strength and ability to strive after what is good,
does he refer to it, so hostile is his whole system to any co-opera
tion between the natural and the supernatural in man.

Thirdly, he does not give its due to man's freedom in co-opera
ting in the doing of what is good ; it is true he does not expressly
deny it, but it was his usual practice in his addresses to the people
to say as little as possible of his doctrine of the enslaved will.1
Along with faith, however, he extols the Holy Ghost. " Leave
it to the Holy Ghost ! " Indeed faith itself, and the strong feeling
which should accompany it, are exclusively the work of the Holy
Ghost. It is the Holy Ghost alone Who believes, and feels, and
works in man, according to Luther's teaching elsewhere. This
action of God alone is something different from actual grace.
In the instructions he gave to Melanchthon in 1536 concerning
justification and works,2 Luther entirely ignores any action on
man's part as a free agent, and yet here we have the " clearest
expression " of his doctrine of how good works follow on justifi
cation. The Protestant author of " Luthers Theologie in ihrer
geschichtlichen Entwicklung " remarks of this work (and the
same applies to the above sermons and other statements) :
" Luther is always desirous, on the one hand of depreciating man's
claim to personal worth and merit, and on the other by his
testimony to God's mercy in Christ, of furthering faith and the
impulses and desires which spring from faith and the spirit ;
here, too, he says nothing of any choice as open to man between
the Divine impulses working within him and those of his sinful
nature."3

Fourthly, and most important of all, Luther says nothing of the
true significance of morality for the attainment of everlasting
life.

The best and theologically most convincing reply to the objec
tion of which he spoke : " Well and good, then I shall sin lustily,"
etc. would have been : No, a good moral life is essential for
salvation ! The strongest Bible texts would have been there to
back such a statement, and, to his powerful eloquence, it should
have proved an attractive task to crush his frivolous opponents
by so weighty an argument. Yet we find never a word concern
ing the necessity of good works for salvation, but merely an
account of the wonders worked by faith of its own accord alone
after it has laid hold on the heart. This is readily understood,
if justification is purely passive and effected solely by the Spirit
of God which enkindles faith and, with it, covers over sin as with
a shield, then the very being of the life of faith must be mere
passivity, and there can be no more question of attaining to
salvation by means of good deeds performed with the aid of grace.
In the instruction for Melanchthon mentioned above we find at

1 Cp. vol. ii., p. 223 ff., particularly p. 240 ff,

2 See above, p. 32, n. 4.

3 Kostlin, ib., p. 206.

THE EISLEBEN SERMONS 37

the end this clear query: "Is this saying true : Righteousness by
works is necessary for salvation ? " Luther answers by a distinc
tion : " Not as if works operate or bring about salvation," he
says, " but rather they are present together with the faith that
operates righteousness ; just as of necessity I must be present
in order to be saved." This distinction, however, leaves the
question just where it was before. He concludes his remarks on
this vital matter with a jest on the purely external and fortuitous
presence of works in the man received into eternal life : "I too
shall be in at the death, said the rascal when he was about to be
hanged and many people were hurrying to see the scene."1

All the more strongly did Luther in his usual way describe in
his last sermon the natural sinfulness which persists in man
owing to original sin.

The sin that still dwells within us " forces " man to prevent
faith and works coming to their own.2 For "he is not yet with
out sin, though he has the forgiveness of sins and is sanctified by
the Holy Ghost." In consequence of the " foulness " within him
" the longer he lives the worse he gets." " We cannot get rid
of our sinful body."3 For this reason even the "best minds "
so often are indifferent to eternal life. On account of the evil
taint in our flesh we are unable to rise as high as we ought.4 But
if original sin and its workings were declared really sinful in man
(for even the very motions against " heartfelt pleasure " in God's
service are, so we are told, "sins"5), then it is no wonder that
Luther should have been confronted with the question of which
he speaks : "If sin be in me, how then can I be pleasing to
God ? " — a question which formerly could not have been asked
of those whose original sin had been washed away in baptism.
The teaching of the olden Church had been, that original sin was
blotted out by baptism, but that the inclination to evil per
sisted in man to his last breath, though without any fault on his
part so long as consent was lacking. 6

Still less to be wondered at was it, that many, unable to regard
themselves as responsible or guilty on account of the involuntary
motions of original sin, began to doubt whether any responsi
bility existed for evil actions or whether moral effort was within
the bounds of possibility.

Further, according to Luther, our constant exercise of our
selves in faith and our " rubbing " ourselves against sin was
finally to lead " not merely to our sins being forgiven but to their

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 346. 2 Ib., 202, 2, p. 548.

3 Ib., p. 545. * Ib., p. 549 f. 5 Ib., p. 551.

6 Luther's opposite doctrine, which is of importance to the matter
under consideration, is expressed by Kostlin (ib., p. 126 f.) as follows :
Luther " does not make guilt and condemnation follow on the act
which is contrary to God's will, nor even on the determination to
commit such an act, but on the inward motion, or concupiscence, nay,
in the inborn evil propensity [even of the baptised] which exists prior
to any conscious motion. . . . We do not find in his writings any
further information on the other questions here involved " (e.g. of the
children who die unbaptised, etc.).

38 LUTHER THE REFORMER

being altogether rooted up and swept away ; for your shabby,
smelly body could not enter heaven without first being cleansed
and beautified."1 Taking for granted his mystic assumption
that sinful concupiscence can at last be " swept away," he insists
on our continuing hopefully " to amend by faith and prayer our
weakness and to fight against it until such a change takes place
in our sinful body that sin no longer exists therein,"2 though, in
his opinion, this cannot entirely be until we reach heaven. Yet
experience, had he but opened his eyes to it, here once again
contradicted him. The " fomes peccati," as the Catholic Church
rightly teaches, cannot be extinguished so long as man is on this
earth, though it may be damped, and, by the practice of what is
right and the use of the means of grace, be rendered harmless to
our moral life. The Church expected nothing unreasonable
from man, though her moral standards were of the highest.
Luther, however, by abandoning the Church's ethics, came to
teach a strange mixture of perverted, unworkable idealism and
all too great indulgence towards human frailty.

Luther's Vacillation between the Two Faiths, Old and New,
in the Matter of Morality and the Assurance of Salvation

Many discordant utterances, betraying his uncertainty
and his struggles, have been bequeathed to us by Luther
regarding the main questions of morality and as to how we
may insure salvation. First we have his statements with
regard to the importance of morality in God's sight.

In 1537 in a Disputation on June 1 he denounced the thesis,
" Good works are necessary for salvation."3 In the same way,
in a sermon of 1535, he asserted that it was by no means neces
sary for us to perform good wrorks " in order to blot out sin, to
overcome death and win heaven, but merely for the profit and
assistance of our neighbour." " Our wTorks," he there says,
" can only shape what concerns our temporal life and being " ;
higher than this they cannot rise. 4

Yet, when thus degrading works, he had again and again to
struggle within his own heart against the faith of the ancient
Church concerning the merit of good deeds. Especially was this
the case when he considered the " texts which demand a good
life on account of the eternal reward,"5 for instance, "If thou
wilt enter into life, keep the commandments " (Mt. xix. 17), or
"Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven" (ib., vi. 20). With
them he deals in a sermon of 1522. The eternal reward, he here
says, follows the works because it is a result of the faith which

1 In the Eisleben sermons, ib., p. 551. 2 Ib., p. 546.

3 " Disputationes," ed. Drews, p. 159. Cp. " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 385.
Loofs, " DG.," 4, p. 857, n. 4, and 770, n. 4.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 192, p. 153. 5 Ib., 132, p. 307.

GOOD WORKS 39

itself is the cause of the works. But the believer must not " lock
to the reward," or trouble about it. Why then does God promise
a reward ? — In order that " all may know what the natural result
of a good life will be." Yet he also admits a certain anxiety on
the part of the pious Christian to be certain of his reward, and the
favourable effect of such a certainty on the good man's will.1
Here he exhorts his listeners ; " that you be content to know and
be assured that this indeed will be the result," whilst in another
sermon of that same year he describes as follows the promise of
eternal life as the reward of works : " It is an incentive and in
ducement that makes us zealous in piety and in the service and
praise of God. . . . That God should guide us so kindly makes
us esteem the more His Fatherly Will and the Mercy of Christ "
— but on no account " must we be good as if for the sake of the
reward."2 He also quotes incidentally Mt. xix. 29, where our
Lord says that all who leave home, brethren, etc. for His name's
sake " shall receive a hundredfold and shall possess life ever
lasting " ; also Heb. x. 35 concerning the " great reward " that
awaits those who lose not their confidence. Such statements,
he refuses, however, to see referred to salvation, which will be
the equal portion of all true believers, but, in his arbitrary
fashion, explains them as denoting some extra ornament of glory. 3

" Good works will be present wherever faith is." As this
supposition, a favourite one with Luther from early days, fails
to verify itself in practice, and as the expedients he proposed to
meet the new difficulty are scattered throughout his writings,
an admirer in recent times ventured to sum up these elements
into a system under the following headings : " Faulty morality
is a proof of a faulty faith." " The fact of morality being present
proves the presence of faith." " Moral indolence induces loss of
faith." " Zeal for morality causes faith to increase."4 The true
explanation would therefore seem always to be in the assumption
of a w^ant of " faith," i.e. of a lack of that absolute certainty of
personal salvation which should regulate all religious life,5 in
other words moral failings should be held to prove the absence of
this saving certainty.

Seen in this light good works are of importance, as the outward
demonstration that a person possesses the " fides specialist' and
in this wise alone are they a guarantee of everlasting happiness.
They prove " before the world and before his own conscience "
that a Christian really has the " faith." This is what Luther
expressly teaches in his Church-Postils : " Therefore hold fast
to this, that a man who is inwardly a Christian is justified before
God solely by faith and without any works ; but outwardly
and publicly, before the people and to himself, he is justified by
works, i.e. he becomes known to others as, and certain in himself

1 Ib., p. 305 ff. 2 Ib., 152, p. 524. Kostlin, ib., p. 213.

3 Cp. ib., 43, p. 362 ff.

4 The headings in W. Walther's " Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther,"
pp. 100, 106, 120, 125 are as above. 5 Above, p. 32 f.

40 LUTHER THE REFORMER

that, he is inwardly just, believing and pious. Thus you may
term one an open or outward justification and the other an in
ward justification."1 Hence Luther's certainty of salvation,
however strong it may be, still requires to be tested by something
else as to whether it is the true " faith " deserving of God's com
passion ; for " it is quite possible for a man never to doubt God's
mercy towards him though all the while he does not really
possess it " ; 2 according to Luther, namely, there is such a thing
as a fictitious faith.

In Luther's opinion " faith " was a grasping of something
actually there. Hence if God's mercy was not there, then neither
was there any " faith." Accordingly, an " unwarrantable assur
ance of salvation " was not at all impossible, and works served as
a means of detecting it. Walther, to whom we owe our summary,
does not, it is true, prove the existence of such a state of " un
warrantable assurance " by any direct quotation from Luther's
writings, and, indeed, it might be difficult to find any definite
statement to this effect, seeing that Luther was chary of speaking
of any failure in the personal certainty of salvation, on which
alone, exclusive of works, he based the whole work of justification.
And yet, as Luther himself frequently says, moods and feelings
are no guarantee of true faith ; what is required are the works,
which, like good fruit, always spring from a good tree. — So
strongly, in spite of all his predilection for faith alone, is he im
pelled again and again to have recourse to works. In many
passages they tend to become something more than mere signs
confirmatory of faith. We need not examine here how far his
statements concerning faith and works are consistent, and to
what extent the sane Catholic teaching continued to influence
him.

What is remarkable, however, is, that, in his commendable
efforts to urge the performance of works in order to curtail the
pernicious results of his doctrine, Luther comes to attribute a
saving action to " faith," only on condition that, out of love of
God, we " strive " against sin. In one of his last sermons at
Eisleben he tells his hearers : Sins are forgiven by faith and " are
not imputed so far as you set yourself to fight against them, and
learn to repeat the Our Father diligently . . . and to grow in
strength as you grow in age ; and you must be at pains to exer
cise your faith by resisting the sins that remain in you ... in
short, you must become stronger, humbler, more patient and
believe more firmly."3 The conditional " so far as " furnishes a
key which has to be used in many other passages where works
are demanded as well as faith. Faith, there, is real and whole
some "in so far as " it produces works : " For we too admit it
and have always taught it, better and more forcibly than they
[the Papists], that we must both preach and perform works, and
that they must follow the faith, and, that, where they do not follow
there the faith is not a3 it should be."4

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 132, p. 304 f. 2 Walther, ib., p. 102.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 202, 2, p. 553. 4 Ib., 122, p. 219.

GOOD WORKS 41

Nor does he merely say that works of charity must follow
eventually, but that charity must be infused by the Spirit of
God together with faith of which it is the fruit.

" For though faith makes us righteous and pure, yet it cannot
be without love, and the Spirit must infuse love together with
faith. In short, where there is true faith, there the Holy Ghost
is also present, and where the Holy Ghost is, there love and all
good things must also be. . . . Love is a consequence or fruit
of the Spirit which comes to us wrapped up in the faith."1
" Charity is so closely bound up [with faith and hope] that it
can never be parted from faith where this is true faith, and as
little as there can be fire without heat and smoke, so little can
faith exist without charity."2 From gratitude (as we have heard
him state above, p. 26) the man who is assured of salvation must
be " well disposed towards God and keep His commandments."
But if he be " sweetly disposed towards God " this must " show
itself in all charity."

Taking the words at their face value we might find in
these and similar statements on charity something reminis
cent of the Catholic doctrine of a faith working through love.3
But though this is what Luther should logically have
arrived at, he was in reality always kept far from it by his
idea both of faith and of imputation. It should be noted
that he was fond of taking shelter behind the assertion, that
his " faith " also included, or was accompanied by, charity.
He was obliged to do this in self-defence against the
objections of certain Evangelicals — who rushed to con
clusions he would not accept — or of Catholic opponents.
Indeed, in order to pacify the doubters, he even went so far
as to say. that love preceded the " faith " he taught, and
that " faith " itself was simply a work like any other work
done for the fulfilling of the commandments.

1 Ib., 82, p. 119, in the exposition of 1 Cor. xiii. 2 : " And though
I had all faith and could remove mountains and had not charity, I am
nothing." 2 Ib., 152, p. 40.

3 Willibald Pirkheimer confronted Luther with the following state
ment of the Catholic teaching : " We know that free-will of itself
without grace cannot suffice. We refer all things back to the Divine
grace, but we believe, that, after the reception of that grace without
which we are nothing, we still have to perform our rightful service.
We are ever subject to the action of grace and always unite our efforts
with grace. . . . But whoever believes that grace alone suffices even
without any exercise of our will or subduing of our desire, such a one
does nothing else but declare that no one is obliged to pray, watch, fast,
take pity on the needy, or perform works of mercy," etc. " Opp.," ed.
Goldast, p. 375 sqq., in Drews, " Pirkheimers Stellung zur Reforma
tion," Leipzig, 1884, p. 119.

42 LUTHER THE REFORMER

It was in this sense that he wrote in the " Sermon von den guten
Wercken," composed at the instance of his prudent friend Spalatin
for the Duke of Saxony : " Such trust and faith brings with it
charity and hope ; indeed, if we look at the matter aright, charity
comes first, or at least simultaneously with faith. For I should
not care to trust God unless I believed He would be kindly and
gracious to me, whereby I am well disposed towards Him, trust
Him heartily and perform all that is good in His sight." In the
same connection he characterises " faith " as a " work of the
first Commandment," and as a " true keeping of that command,"
and as the " first, topmost and best work from which all others
flow."1 It might seem, though this is but apparent, that he had
actually come to acknowledge the reality and merit of man's
works, in the teeth of his denial of free-will and of the possibility
of meriting.

Of charity as involved in faith he wrote in a similar strain in
1519 to Johann Silvius Egranus, who at that time still belonged
to his party, but was already troubled with scruples concerning
the small regard shown for ethical motives and the undue stress
laid on faith alone : " I do not separate justifying faith from
charity," Luther told him, " on the contrary we believe because
God, in Whom we believe, pleases us and is loved by us." To
him all this was quite clear and plain, but the new-comers who
had busied themselves with faith, hope and charity " under
stood not one of the three."2

We may recall how the enquiring mind of Egranus was by no
means entirely satisfied by this explanation. In 1534 he pub
lished a bitter attack on the Lutheran doctrine of works, though
he never returned more than half-way from Lutheranism to the
olden Church.3

Many, like Silvius Egranus, who at the outset had been won
over to the new religion, took fright when they saw that, owing
to the preference shown to faith (i.e. the purely personal assurance
of salvation), -the ethical principles regarding Christian perfection
and man's aim in life, received but scant consideration.

Many truly saw therein an alarming abasement of the
moral standard and accordingly returned to the doctrine of
their fathers. As the ideal to be aimed at throughout life
the Church had set up before them progress in the love of
God, encouraging them to put this love in practice by
fidelity to the duties of their calling and by a humble and
confident trust in God's Fatherly promises rather than in
any perilous " fides specialist

In previous ages Christian perfection had rightly been thought
to consist in the development of the moral virtues, particularly

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 162, p. 131.

2 Feb. 2, 1519, " Brief wechsel," 1, p. 408. 3 See vol. hi., p. 462 ff.

LOWERING OF MORALS 43

of charity, the queen of all the others. Now, however, Luther
represented " the consoling faith in the forgiveness of sins as the
sum of Christian perfection."1 According to him. the "real
essence of personal Christianity lies in the confidence of the justi
fied sinner that he shares the paternal love of the Almighty of
which he has been assured by the work and person of Jesus
Christ." In this sense alone can he be said to have " rediscovered
Christianity " as a religion. We are told that " the essence of
Lutheran Christianity is to be found in Luther's reduction of
practical Christianity to the doctrine of salvation."2 He " altered
the ideal of religious perfection as no other Christian before
his day had ever done." The " revulsion " in moral ideals which
this necessarily involved spelt " a huge decline."3

George Wicel, who, after having long been an adherent of
Lutheranism, broke away from it in consequence of the moral
results referred to, wrote, in 1533, with much bitterness in the
defence he addressed to Justus Jonas : " Amongst you one hears
of nothing but of remitting and forgiving ; you don't seem to
see that your seductions sow more sins than ever you can take
away. Your people, it is true, are so constituted that they will
only hear of the forgiving and never of the retaining of sin
(John xx. 23) ; evidently they stand more in need of being loosed
than of being bound. Ah, you comfortable theologians ! You
are indeed sharp-sighted enough in all this business, for were you
to bind as often as you loose, you, the ringleaders of the party,
would soon find yourselves all alone with your faith, and might
then withdraw into some hole to weep for the loss of your authority
and congregation." " Ah, you rascals, what a fine Evangelical
mode of life have you wrought with your preachment on grace."4

5. Abasement of Practical Christianity

To follow up the above statement emanating from a
Protestant source, concerning the " huge decline " in moral
ideals and practical Christianity involved in Luther's work,
we shall go on to consider how greatly he did in point of
fact narrow and restrict ethical effort in comparison with
what was required by the ethics of earlier days. In so doing
he was following the psychological impulse discernible even
in the first beginnings of his dislike for the austerity of his
Order and the precepts of the Church.

1 Adolf Harnack, " DG.," 34, p. 850.

2 Loofs, " DG.," 4, p. 698, n. 1, p. 737.

3 Harnack, ib., p. 831 f.

4 " Confutatio calumn. resp.," E 2a. Dollinger, " Reformation,"
1, p. 39.

44 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Lower Moral Standards

1. The only works of obligation in the service of God are
faith, praise and thanksgiving. God, he says, demands only
our faith, our praise and our gratitude. Of our works He
has no need.1 He restricts our " deeds towards God " to
the praise-offering or thank-offering for the good received,
and to the prayer-offering " or Our Father, against the evil
and badness we would wish to be rid of."2 This service is
the duty of each individual Christian and is practised in
common in Divine worship. The latter is fixed and con
trolled with the tacit consent of the congregation by the
ministers who represent the people ; in this we find the
trace of Luther's innate aversion to any law or obligation
which leads him to avoid anything savouring of legislative
action.3

In the preface to his instructions to the Visitors in 1528
he declares, for instance, that the rules laid down were not
meant to " found new Papal Decretals " ; they were rather
to be taken as a " history of and witness to our faith " and
not as " strict commands."4 This well expresses his
antipathy to the visible Catholic Church, her hierarchy and
her so-called man-made ordinances for public worship.

Since, to his mind, it is impossible to offer God anything
but love, thanksgiving and prayer, it follows that, firstly,
the Eucharistic Sacrifice falls, and, with it, all the sacrifices
made to the greater glory of God by self-denial and abnega
tion, obedience or bodily penances, together with all those
works — practised in imitation of Christ by noble souls —
done over and above the bounden duties of each one's
calling. He held that it was wrong to say of such sacrifices,
made by contrite and loving hearts, that they were both
to God's glory and to our own advantage, or to endeavour
to justify them by arguing that : Whoever does not do
great things for God must expect small recompense. Among
the things which fell before him were : vows, processions,
pilgrimages, veneration of relics and of the Saints, ecclesi-

1 Kostlin, " Luthers Theol.," 22, p. 208.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 92, p. 33. 3 Kostlin, ib., pp. 284, 295.

4 "Werke," Weim. ed., 26, p. 200; Erl. ed., 23, p. 9. Kostlin,
however (p. 275 f.), points out that Luther nevertheless threatens those
who refuse to accept his injunctions. Cp. below, xxix., 9.

LOWERING OF MORALS 45

astical blessings and sacramentals, not to speak of holy
days and prescribed fasts. With good reason can one speak
of a " huge decline."

He justifies as follows his radical opposition to the
Catholic forms of Divine worship : " The only good we can
do in God's service is to praise and thank Him, in which in
fact the only true worship of God consists. ... If any
other worship of God be proposed to you, know that it is
error and deception."1 " It is a rank scandal that the Papists
should encourage people to toil for God with works so as
thereby to expiate their sins and secure grace. ... If you
wish to believe aright and really to lay hold on Christ, you
must discard all works whereby you may think you labour
for God ; all such are nothing but scandals leading you away
from Christ and from God ; in God's sight no work is of any
value except Christ's own ; this you must leave to toil for
you in God's sight ; you yourself must perform no other
work for Him than to believe that Christ does His work
for you."2

In the same passage he attempts to vindicate this species
of Quietism with the help of some recollections from his own
earlier career, viz. by the mystic principle which had at one
time ruled him : " You must be blind and lame, deaf and
dead, poor and leprous, or else you will be scandalised in
Christ. This is what it means to know Christ aright and to
accept Him ; this is to believe as befits a true Christian."3

2. " All other works, apart from faith, must be directed
towards our neighbour."4 As we know, besides that faith,
gratitude and love which are God's due, Luther admits no
good works but those of charity towards our neighbour. By
our faith we give to God all that He asks of us. " After this,
think only of doing for your neighbour what Christ has done
for you, and let all your works and all your life go to the
service of your neighbour."5 — God, he says elsewhere, asks
only for our thank-offering f " look upon Me as a Gracious
God and I am content " ; " thereafter serve your neigh
bour, freely and for nothing."6 Good works in his eyes are
only " good when they are profitable to others and not to

1 " Werke," ib., 72, p. 68. 2 Ib., 102, p. 108.

3 On dying spiritually, cp. vol. i., p. 169 and passim.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 102, p. 108. 5 Ib.
6 " Werke," Erl. ed., 132, p. 206.

46 LUTHER THE REFORMER

yourself." Indeed he goes so far as to assert : "If you find
yourself performing a work for God, or for His Saints, or for
yourself and not alone for your neighbour, know that the
work is not good."1 The only explanation of such sentences,
as already hinted, is to be found in his passionate polemics
against the worship and the pious exercises of the Catholics.
It is true that such practices were sullied at that time by
certain blemishes, owing to the abuses rampant in the
Church ; yet the Catholic could confidently answer in self-
defence in the words Luther proceeds to put on his lips :
Such " works are spiritual and profitable to the soul of our
neighbour, and God thereby is served and propitiated and
His Grace obtained."

Luther rudely retorts : " You lie in your throat ; God is
served not by works but by faith ; faith must do everything
that is to be done as between God and ourselves." That
the priests and monks should vaunt their religious exercises
as spiritual treasures, he brands as a " Satanic lie." " The
works of the Papists such as organ-playing, chanting,
vesting, ringing, smoking [incensation], sprinkling, pilgrim-
ing and fasting, etc., are doubtless fine and many, grand and
long, broad and thick works, but about them there is nothing
good, useful or profitable."

3. " Know that there are no good works but such as God
has commanded." What, apart from faith, makes a work a
good one is solely God's express command. Luther, while
finding fault with the self-chosen works of the Catholics,
points to the Ten Commandments as summing up every
good work willed by God. " There used to be ecclesiastical
precepts wljich were to supersede the Decalogue." ' The
commandments of the Church were invented and set up by
men in addition to and beyond God's Word. Luther there
fore deals with the true worship of God in the light of the
Ten Commandments."2 As for the Evangelical Counsels so
solemnly enacted in the New Testament, viz. the striving
after a perfection which is not of obligation, Luther, urged
on by his theory that only what is actually commanded

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 102, p. 25. Cp. on Luther's restriction of good
works to practical love of our neighbour, vol. iv., p. 477 ff., and above,
p. 26, 38 f.

2 Chr. E. Luthardt, " Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundziigen," 2,
1875, p. 70.

THE EVANGELICAL COUNSELS 47

partakes of the nature of a good work, came very near
branding them as an invention of the Papists.

They have " made the Counsels twelve" in number,1 he says,
" and twist the Gospel as they please." They have split the
Gospel into two, into " Consilia et prcecepta." " Christ," so he
teaches, " gave only one Counsel in the whole of the Gospel, viz.
that of chastity, which even a layman can preserve, assuming
him to have the grace." He sneers at the Pope and the Doctors
because they had established not only a clerical order which
should be superior to the laity, but also an order of the counsels
the duty of whose members it was to portray the Evangelical
perfection by the keeping of the three vows of poverty, chastity
and obedience. " By this the common Christian life and faith
became like flat, sour beer ; everyone rubbed his eyes, despised
the commandments and ran after the counsels. And after a
good while they at last discovered man-made ordinances in the
shape of habits, foods, chants, lessons, tonsures, etc., and thus
God's Law went the way of faith, both being blotted out and
forgotten, so that, henceforth, to be perfect and to live according
to the counsels means to wear a black, white, grey or coloured
cowl, to bawl in church, wear a tonsure and to abstain from eggs,
meat, butter, etc."2

In the heat of his excitement he even goes so far as to deny
the necessity of any service in the churches, because God demands
only the praise and thanks of the heart, and " this may be given
. . . equally well in the home, in the field, or anywhere else."
" If they should force any other service upon you, know that it
is error and deception ; just as hitherto the world has been crazy,
with its houses, churches and monasteries set aside for the
worship of God, and its vestments of gold and silk, etc. . . ,
which expenditure had better been used to help our neighbour,
if it was really meant for God."3

It was of course impossible for him to vindicate in the long
run so radical a standpoint concerning the churches, and, else
where, he allows people their own way on the question of litur
gical vestments and other matters connected with worship.

4. The good works which are performed where there is
no " faith " amount to sin. This strangely unethical
assertion Luther is fond of repeating in so extravagant a
form as can only be explained psychologically by the utter
blindness of his bias in favour of the " fides specialis " by him
discovered. True morality belongs solely to those who have
been justified after his own fashion, and no others have the
slightest right to credit themselves with anything of the sort.

1 Cp. " Compend. totius theol. Hugonis Argentorat. O.P.," V. cap. ult.

2 Quoted from Luthardt, ib., pp. 70-73.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 72, p, 68,

48 LUTHER THE REFORMER

When, in 1528, in his " Great Confession " he expounded his
" belief bit by bit," declaring that he had " most diligently
weighed all these articles " as in the presence of death and
judgment, he there wrote : " Herewith I reject and condemn
as rank error every doctrine that exalts our free-will, which is
directly opposed to the help and grace of our Saviour Jesus
Christ. For seeing, that, outside of Christ, death and sin are our
masters and the devil our God and sovereign, there can be no
power or might, no wit or understanding whereby we could make
ourselves fit for, or could even strive after, righteousness and life,
but on the contrary we must remain blind and captive, slaves of
sin and the devil, and must do what pleases them and runs
counter to God and His Commandments."1 Even the most
pious of the Papists, he goes on to say, since they lack Christ and
the " Faith," have " merely a great semblance of holiness,"
and although " there seem to be many good works " among them,
" yet all is lost " ; chastity, poverty and obedience as practised
in the convents is nothing but " blasphemous holiness," and
" what is horrible is that thereby they refuse Christ's help and
grace."2

This, his favourite idea, finds its full expression in his learned
Latin Commentary on Galatians (1535) : " In the man who does
not believe in Christ not only are all sins mortal, but even his
good works are sins " ;3 for the benefit of the people he enunciates
the same in his Church-Postils. ;' The works performed without
faith are sins . . . for such works of ours are soiled and foul in
God's eyes, nay, He looks on them with horror and loathing."
As a matter of course he thinks that God looks upon concupis
cence as sin, even in its permissible manifestations, e.g. in the
" opus conjugates . " Amongst the heathen even virtues such as
patriotism, continence, justice and courage in which, owing to
the divine impulses (" divini motus "), they may shine, are
tainted by the presence in them of original sin (" in ipsis heroicis
virtutibus depravata ").4 As to whether such men were saved,
Luther refuses to say anything definite ; he holds fast to the
text that without faith it is impossible to please God. Only
those who, in the days of Noe, did not believe may, so he declares,
be saved in accordance with his reading of 1 Peter iii. 19 by
Christ's preaching of salvation on the occasion of His descent
into hell. He is also disposed to include among those saved by
this supposed course of sermons delivered "tn inferis," such fine
men of every nation as Scipio, Fabius and others of their like. 5

In general, however, the following holds good : Before " faith
and grace " are infused into the heart " by the Spirit alone,"
"as the work of God which He works in us" — everything in

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 26, p. 502 f. ; Erl. ed., 30, p. 365.

2 Ib., pp. 507, 509 = 370, 372.

3 Ed. Irmischer, 3, p. 25. Cp. Loofs, " DG.," 4, p. 705.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed. 152, p. 60. " Opp. lat. exeg.," 2, p. 273 sqq. ;
19, p. 18; 24, p. 463, sq. " Disputationes," ed. Drews, pp. 115, 172.

5 Cp. Kostlin, " Luthers Theol.," 22, p. 169 f., the passages quoted.

THE SUPERNATURAL 49

man is the " work of the Law, of no value for justification, but
unholy and opposed to God owing to the unbelief in which it is
performed."1

Annulment of the Supernatural and Abasement of the
Natural Order

From the above statements it is clear that Luther, in
doing away with the distinction between the natural and
supernatural order, also did away with the olden doctrine of
virtue, and without setting up anything positive in its place.
He admits no naturally good action different from that per
formed " by faith and grace " ; no such thing exists as a
natural, moral virtue of justice. This opinion is closely
bound up with his whole warfare on man's natural character
and endowments in respect of what is good. Moreover,
what he terms the state of grace is not the supernatural state
the Church had always understood, but an outward imputa
tion by God ; it is indeed God's goodness towards man, but
no new vital principle thanks to which we act justly.2

Not only does he deny the distinction between natural and
supernatural goodness, essential as it is for forming an
ethical estimate of man, but he practically destroys both the
natural and supernatural order. Even in other points of
Luther's doctrine we can notice the abrogation of the
fundamental difference between the two orders ; for
instance in his view of Adam's original state, which, accord
ing to him, was a natural not a supernatural one, " no
gift," as he says, " apart from man's nature, and bestowed
on him from without, but a natural righteousness so that it
came natural to him to love God [as he did], to believe in
Him and to acknowledge Him."3 It is, however, in the
moral domain that this peculiarity of his new theology comes
out most glaringly. Owing to his way of proceeding and the
heat of his polemics he seems never to have become fully
conscious of how far-reaching the consequences were of his

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 340 ; Erl. ed., 72, p. 261.— For
the theological and psychological influences which led him to these
statements, see vol. i., pp. 72 ff., 149 ff.

2 Cp. what Luther says in his Comm. on Romans in 1515-16 : It
depends entirely " on the gracious Will of God whether a thing is to be
good or evil," and " Nothing is of its own nature good, nothing of its
own nature evil," etc., vol. i., p. 211 f.

3 " Opp. lat. exeg.," 1, p. 109, " In Genesim," c. 3.

V.— B

50 LUTHER THE REFORMER

destruction of all distinction between the natural and the
supernatural order.

Natural morality, viz. that to which man attains by means
of his unaided powers, appears to him simply an invention of
the pagan Aristotle. He rounds on all the theologians of his
day for having swallowed so dangerous an error in their
Aristotelian schools to the manifest detriment of the divine
teaching. This he does, for instance, at the commencement
of his recently published Commentary on Romans. He calls
it a " righteousness of the philosophers and lawyers " in
itself utterly worthless.1 A year later, in his manuscript
Commentary on Hebrews, he has already reached the
opinion, that, " the virtues of all the philosophers, nay,
of all men, whether they be lawyers or theologians, have
only a semblance of virtue, but in reality are vices
(' vitia ')." 2

But what would be quite incomprehensible, had he
actually read the scholastic theologians whose " civil,
Aristotelian doctrine of justice " he was so constantly
attacking, is, that he charges them with having stopped
short at this natural justice and with not having taught any
thing higher ; this higher justice was what he himself had
brought to light, this was the " Scriptural justice which
depended more on the Divine imputation than on the nature
of things,"3 and was not acquired by deeds but bestowed by
God. The fact is, however, that the Schoolmen did not rest
content merely with natural justice, but insist that true
justice is something higher, supernatural and only to be
attained to with the help of grace ; it is only in some few
later theologians with whom Luther may possibly have
been acquainted, that this truth fails to find clear expression.
Thomas of Aquin, for instance, distinguishes between the
civil virtue of justice and the justice infused in the act of
justification. He says expressly : "A man may be termed
just in two ways, on account of civil [natural] justice and on
account of infused justice. Civil justice is attained to with
out the grace which comes to the assistance of the natural
powers, but infused justice is the work of grace. Neither the
one nor the other, however, consists in the mere doing of

1 See vol. i., p. 148 f. Cp. Denifle-Weiss, I2, p. 527, n. 1.

2 Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 528, n. 2.

;i Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 527. Cp. our vol. i., p. 148 f,

THE SUPERNATURAL 51

what is good, for not everyone who does what is good is just,
but only he who does it as do the just."1

With regard to supernatural (infused) justice, the Church's
representatives, quite differently from Luther, had taught that
man by his natural powers could only attain to God as the Author
of nature but not to God as He is in Himself, i.e. to God as He
has revealed and will communicate Himself in heaven ; it is
infused, sanctifying grace alone that places us in a higher order
than that of nature and raises us to the status of being children
of God ; in it we love God, by virtue of the " habit " of love
bestowed upon us, as He is in Himself, i.e. as He wills to be loved ;
sanctifying grace it is that brings us into a true relation with our
supernatural and final end, viz. the vision of God in heaven, in
which sense it may be called a vital principle infused into the
soul. 2

This language Luther either did not or would not understand.
On this point particularly he had to suffer for his ignorance of
the better class of theologians. He first embraced Occam's
hypothesis of the possibility of an imputation of justice, and
then, going further along the wrong road, he changed this possi
bility into a reality ; soon, owing to his belief in the entire cor
ruption of the natural man, imputed justice became, to him, the
only justice. In this way he deprived theology of supernatural
as well as of natural justice ; for imputed justice is really no
justice at all, but merely an alien one. " With Luther we have
the end of the supernatural. His basic view, of justifying faith
as the work of God in us performed without our co-operation,
bears indeed a semblance of the supernatural. . . . But the
supernatural is ever something alien."3

What he had in his mind was always a foreign righteousness
produced, not by man's own works and acts performed under
the help of grace, but only by the work of another ; this we are
bold by Luther in so many words : " True and real piety which
is of worth in God's sight consists in alien works and not in our
own."4 "If we wish to work for God we must not approach
Him with our own works but with foreign ones." " These are
the works of Our Lord Jesus Christ." " All that He has is ours.
... I may attribute to myself all His works as though I had
actually done them, if only I believe in Christ. . . . Our works

1 " In 2 Sent.," dist. 28, a. 1 ad 4. Denifle- Weiss, ib., p. 482, n. 1.
Cp. Luther's frequent statement, already sufficiently considered in our
vol. iv., p. 476 f., in which he sums up his new standpoint : Good
works never make a good man, but good men perform good works.

2 Cp. Denifle-Weiss, ib., p. 598.

3 Denine-Weiss, p. 604. Cp. also p. 600, n. 2, where Denifle remarks :
" Being an Occamist he never understood actual grace."

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 152, p. 60. After the words quoted above
follows the remarkable passage : One builds churches, another makes
pilgrimages, etc. " These are self -chosen works which God has not
commanded. . . . Such self-chosen works are nought . . . are sin."

52 LUTHER THE REFORMER

will not suffice, all our powers together are too weak to resist
even the smallest sin. . . . Hence when the Law comes and
accuses you of not having kept it, send it to Christ and say : There
is the Man who has fulfilled it, to Him I cling, He has fulfilled
it for me and bestowed His fulfilment of it upon me ; then the
Law will have to hold its tongue."1

The Book of Concord on the Curtailment of Free-Will.

When orthodox Lutheranism gained a local and temporary
victory in 1580 with the so-called Book of Concord, the
authors of the book deplored the inferences drawn from
Luther's moral teaching, particularly from his denial of
free-will, the dangers of which had already long been
apparent.

" It is not unknown to us," they say, " that this holy doctrine
of the malice and impotence of free-will, the doctrine whereby
our conversion and regeneration is ascribed solely to God and in
no way to our own powers, has been godlessly, shamelessly and
hatefully abused. . . . Many are becoming immoral and savage
and neglectful of all pious exercises ; they say : ' Since we can
not turn to God of our own natural powers, let us remain hostile
to God or wait until He converts us by force and against our
will.' ' " It is true that they possess no power to act in spiritual
things, and that the whole business of conversion is merely the
work of the Holy Ghost. And thus they refuse to listen to the
Word of God, or to study it, or to receive the Sacraments ; they
prefer to wait until God infuses His gifts into them directly from
above, and until they feel and are certain by inward experience
that they have been converted by God."

" Others," they continue, speaking of the case as a possibility
and not as a sad reality, " may possibly give themselves up to
sad and dangerous doubts as to whether they have been pre
destined by God to heaven, and as to whether God will really
work His gifts in them by the help of the Holy Ghost. Being
weak and troubled in mind they do not grasp aright our pious
doctrine of free-will, and they are confirmed in their doubts by the
fact that they do not find within themselves any firm and ardent
faith or hearty devotion to God, but only weakness, misery and
fear." The authors then proceed to deal with the widespread
fear of predestination to hell.2

We have as it were a sad monument set up to the morality
of the enslaved will and the doctrine of imputation, when
the Book of Concord, in spite of the sad results it has just

. ! Ib., p. 61 f.

2 " Symb. Biicher," ed. Muller-Kolde, 10, p. 599 f.

THE SYNERGISTS 53

admitted, goes on in the same chapter to insist that all
Luther's principles should be preserved intact. " This
matter Dr. Luther settled most excellently and thoroughly
in his ' De servo arbitrio ' against Erasmus, where he showed
this opinion to be pious and irrefutable. Later on he
repeated and further explained the same doctrine in his
splendid Commentary on Genesis, particularly in his
exposition of ch. xxvi. There, Joo, he made other matters
clear — e.g. the doctrine of the ' absoluta necessitas ' — defended
them against the objections of Erasmus and, by his pious
explanations, set them above all evil insinuations and
misrepresentations. All of which we here corroborate and
commend to the diligent study of all."1

Melanchthon's and his school's modifications of these
extreme doctrines are here sharply repudiated, though
Luther himself " never spoke with open disapproval " of
Melanchthon's Synergism.2

" From our doctrinal standpoint," we there read, "it is plain
that the teaching of the Synergists is false, who allege that man
in spiritual things is not altogether dead to what is good but merely
badly wounded and half dead. . . . They teach wrongly, that
after the Holy Spirit has given us, through the Evangel, grace,
forgiveness and salvation, then free-will is able to meet God by
its natural powers and . . . co-operate with the Holy Ghost.
In reality the ability to lay hold upon grace (' facultas applicandi
se ad gratiam ') is solely due to the working of the Holy Ghost."

What then is man to do, and how are the consequences de
scribed above to be obviated, on the one hand libertinism, on the
other fear of predestination to hell ?

Man still possesses a certain freedom, so the Book of Concord
teaches, e.g. " to be present or not at the Church's assemblies, to
listen or close his ears to the Word of God."

" The preaching of the Word of God is however the tool
whereby the Holy Ghost seeks to effect man's conversion and to
make him ready to will and to work (' in ipsis et velle et perficere
operari vult ')." " Man is free to open his ears to the Word of
God or to read it even when not yet converted to God or born
again. In some way or other man still has free-will in such out
ward things even since Adam's Fall." Hence, by the Word, " by

1 Ib. The Thesis of man's lack of freedom is bluntly expressed on
p. 589, and in the sequel it is pointed out that in Luther's larger
Catechism not one word is found concerning free-will. Reference is
made to his comparison of man with the lifeless pillar of salt (p. 593),
and to Augustine's " Confessions " (p. 596).

2 The last remark is from Loofs, " DG.," 4, p. 857. Cp. our vol. iii.,
p. 348 ff. and passim.

54 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the preaching and contemplation of the sweet Evangel of the
forgiveness of sins, the spark of ' faith ' is enkindled in his
heart."1

" Although all effort without the power and work of the Holy
Spirit is worthless, yet neither the preacher nor the hearer must
doubt of this grace or work of the Holy Spirit," so long as the
preacher proceeds according to God's will and command and
" the hearer listens earnestly and diligently and dwells on what
he hears." We are not to judge of the working of the Holy Ghost
by our feelings, but " agreeably with the promises of God's
Word." We must hold that " the Word preached is the organ
of the Holy Ghost whereby He truly works and acts in our
hearts."2

With the help of this queer, misty doctrine which, as we may
notice, makes of preaching a sort of Sacrament working " ex
opere operato," Luther's followers attempted to construct a
system out of their master's varying and often so arbitrary
statements. At any rate they upheld his denial of any natural
order of morality distinct from the order of grace. It was to
remain true that man, " previous to conversion, possesses indeed
an understanding, but not of divine things, and a will, though
not for anything good and wholesome." In this respect man
stands far below even a stock or stone, because he resists the
Word and Will of God (which they cannot do) until God raises
him up from the death of sin, enlightens and creates him anew. 3

Nevertheless several theses, undoubtedly Luther's own, are
here glossed over or quietly bettered. If, for instance, according
to Luther everything takes place of absolute necessity (a fact to
which the Formula of Concord draws attention), if man, even
in the natural acts of the mind, is bound by what is fore-ordained, 4
then even the listening to a sermon and the dwelling on it cannot
be matters of real freedom. Moreover the man troubled with
fears on predestination, is comforted by the well-known Bible
texts, which teach that it is the Will of God that all should be
saved ; whilst nothing is said of Luther's doctrine that it is
only the revealed God who speaks thus, whereas the hidden
God acts quite otherwise, plans and carries out the very opposite,
" damns even those who have not deserved it — and, yet, does
not thereby become unjust."5 Reference is made to Adam's
Fall, whereby nature has been depraved ; but nothing is said
of Luther's view that Adam himself simply could not avoid
falling because God did not then " bestow on him the spirit of
obedience."0 But, though these things are passed over in silence,
due prominence is given to those ideas of Luther's of which the
result is the destruction of all moral order, natural as well as

1 " Symb. Biicher," ib., p. 601. 2 Ib.

3 Ib., p. 602. 4 Cp. vol. ii., pp. 232, 265 f., 290.

5 Quoted from Loofs, " DGL," 4, p. 758. On the statement " with
out on that account being unjust " see vol. i., p. 187 ff., vol. ii, p. 268 f.

6 " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 675 ; " Opp. lat. var.," 7, p. 207.
Cp. Loofs, ib., p. 757.

CHRISTIANITY INWARD 55

supernatural. According to the Formula of Concord the natural
order was shattered by Adam's Fall ; as for the supernatural
order it is replaced by the alien, mechanical order of imputation.

Christianity merely Inward. The Church Sundered from
the World

Among the things which Luther did to the detriment of
the moral principle must be numbered his merciless tearing
asunder of spiritual and temporal, of Christian and secular
life.

The olden Church sought to permeate the world with the
religious spirit. Luther's trend was in a great measure
towards making the secular state and its office altogether
independent ; this, indeed, the more up-to-date sort of
ethics is disposed to reckon among his greatest achievements.
Luther even went so far as to seek to erect into a regular
system this inward, necessary opposition of world and
Church. Of this we have a plain example in certain of his
instructions to the authorities.1 Whereas the Church had
exhorted people in power to temper with Christianity their
administration of civil justice and their use of physical force
—urging that the sovereign was a Christian not merely in
his private but also in his official capacity, — Luther tells the
ruler : The Kingdom of Christ wholly belongs to the order
of grace, but the kingdom of the world and worldly life
belong to the order of the Law ; the two kingdoms are of
a different species and belong to different worlds. To the
one you belong as a Christian, to the other as a man and
a ruler. Christ has nothing to do with the regulations of
worldly life, but leaves them to the world ; earthly life
stands in no need of being outwardly hallowed by the
Church.2 Certain statements to a different effect will be
considered elsewhere.

" A great distinction," Luther said in 1523, " must be made
between a worldling and a Christian, i.e. between a Christian
and a worldly man. For a Christian is neither man nor woman
. . . must know nothing and possess nothing in the world. . . .
A prince may indeed be a Christian, but he must not rule as a
Christian, and when he rules he does so not as a Christian but
as a prince. As an individual he is indeed a Christian, but his

1 Cp. vol. ii., p. 294 ff, and below, xxxv., 2.

2 The above largely reproduces Luthardt, " Luthers Ethik," 2,
p. 81 ff.

56 LUTHER THE REFORMER

office or princedom is no business of his Christianity." This
seems to him proved by his mystical theory that a Christian
" must not harm or punish anyone or revenge himself, but for
give everyone and endure patiently all injustice or evil that
befalls him." The theory, needless to say, is based on his mis
apprehension of the Evangelical Counsels which he makes into
commands.1 On such principles as these, he concludes, it was
impossible for any prince to rule, hence " his being a Christian
had nothing to do with land and subjects."2

For the same reason he holds that " every man on this earth "
comprises two " practically antagonistic personalities," for "each
one has at the same time to suffer, and not to suffer, everything."3
The dualism which Luther here creates is due to his extravagant
over-statement of the Christian law. The Counsels of Perfection
given by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, with which Luther
is here dealing (not to resist evil, not to go to law, etc., Mt. v. 19 ff.),
are not an invitation addressed to all Christians, and if higher con
siderations or some duty stands in the way it would certainly
denote no perfection to follow them. Luther's misinterpretation
necessarily led him to make a cleavage between Christian life
and life in the world.

The dualism, however, in so far as it concerned the authorities
had, however, yet another source. For polemical reasons Luther
was determined to make an end of the great influence that the
olden Church had acquired over public life. Hence he absolves the
secular power from all dependence as the latter had itself sought
to do even before his time. He refused to see that, in spite of all
the abuses which had followed on the Church's interference in
politics during the Middle Ages, mankind had gained hugely by
the guidance of religion. To swallow up the secular power in the
spiritual had never been part of the Church's teaching, nor was
it ever the ideal of her enlightened representatives ; but, for the
morality of the great, for the observance of maxims of justice
and for the improvement of the nations the principle that religion
must not be separated from the life of the State and from the
office of those in authority, but must permeate and spiritualise
them was, as history proved, truly vital. Subsequent to Luther's
day the tendency to separate the two undoubtedly made un
checked progress. He himself, however, was not consistent in
his attitude. On the contrary, he came more and more to
desiderate the establishment of the closest possible bond between
the civil authorities and religion — provided only that the ruler's
faith was the same as Luther's. Nevertheless, generally speaking,
the separation he had advocated of secular from spiritual became
the rule in the Protestant fold.

1 See our vol. ii., p. 298 f.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 32, p. 439 ; Erl. ed., 43, p. 211. Exposition
of Mt. v.-vii. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 297 f., and vol. iii., pp. 52 f., 60 : A
prince, as a Christian, must not even defend himself, since a Christian
is dead to the world.

3 " Werke," ib.

COUNSEL AND PRECEPT 57

" Lutheranism," as Friedrich Paulsen said on the strength of
his own observations in regions partly Catholic and partly
Protestant, " which is commonly said to have introduced religion
into the world and to have reconciled public worship with life and
the duties of each one's calling has, as a matter of fact, led to
the complete alienation and isolation of the Church from real
life ; on the contrary, the older Church, despite all her ' over-
worldliness,' has contrived to make herself quite at home in the
world, and has spun a thousand threads in and around the fabric
of its life." He thinks himself justified in stating: "Protestant
ism is a religion of the individual, Catholicism is the religion of
the people ; the former seeks seclusion, the latter publicity.
In the one even public worship bears a private character and
appears as foreign to the world as the pulpit rhetoric of a Lutheran
preacher of the old school ; the [Protestant] Church stands out
side the bustle of the workaday world in a world of her own." l

We may pass over the fact, that, Luther, by discarding
the so-called Counsels reduced morality to a dead level.
In the case of all the faithful he abased it t.o the standard
of the Law, doing away with that generous, voluntary
service of God which the Church had ever approved and
blessed. We have already shown this elsewhere, more
particularly in connection with the status of the Evangelical
Counsels and the striving after Christian perfection in the
monastic life. According to him there are practically no
Counsels for those who wish to pass beyond the letter of the
Law ; there is but one uniform moral Law, and, on the true
Christian, even the so-called Counsels are strictly binding.2

Life in the world, however, according to his theory has
very different laws ; here quite another order obtains,
which is, often enough, quite the opposite to what man, as
a Christian, recognises in his heart to be the true standard.
As a Christian he must offer his cheek to the smiter ; as
a member of the civil order he may not do so, but, on the
contrary, must everywhere vindicate his rights. Thus his
Christianity, so long as he lives in the world, must perforce
be reduced to a matter of inward feeling ; it is constantly
exposed to the severest tests, or, more accurately, constantly
in the need of being explained away. The believer is faced
by a twofold order of things, and the regulating of his moral
conduct becomes a problem which can never be satis
factorily solved.

1 " Jugenderinnemngen aus seinem Nachlasse," Jena, 1909, p. 155 f.

2 Cp. vol. ii., p. 140 ff. ; vol. iii., p. 187 ft ; vol. iv., p. 130 f.

58 LUTHER THE REFORMER

" Next to the doctrine of Justification there is hardly any
other doctrine which Luther urges so frequently and so
diligently as that of the inward character and nature of
Christ's kingdom, and the difference thus existing between
it and the kingdom of the world, i.e. the domain of our
natural life."1

Let us listen to Luther's utterances at various periods on the
dualism in the moral life of the individual : " The twin kingdoms
must be kept wide asunder : the spiritual where sin is punished
and forgiven, and the secular where justice is demanded and
dealt out. In God's kingdom which He rules according to the
Gospel there is no demanding of justice, but all is forgiveness,
remission and bestowal, nor is there any anger, or punishment,
but nothing save brotherly charity and service."2 " No rights,
anger, or punishment," this certainly would have befitted the
invisible, spiritual Church which Luther had originally planned
to set up in place of the visible one.3

" Christ's everlasting kingdom ... is to be an eternal
spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men by the preaching of the
Gospel and by the Holy Spirit."4 "For your own part, hold
fast to the Gospel and to the Word of Christ so as to be ready to
offer the other cheek to the smiter, to give your mantle as well as
your coat whenever it is a question of yourself and your cause."5
It is a strict command, though at utter variance with the civil
law, in which your neighbour also is greatly concerned. In so
far, therefore, you must resist. " Thus you manage perfectly to
satisfy at the same time both the Kingdom of God and that of
the world, both the outward and the inward ; you suffer evil and
injustice and yet at the same time punish evil and injustice ; you
do not resist evil, and yet at the same time you resist it ; for
according to the one you look to yourself and to yours, and,
according to the other, to your neighbour and to his rights. As
regards yourself and yours, you act according to the Gospel and
suffer injustice as a true Christian ; as regards your neighbour
and his rights, you act in accordance with charity and permit no
injustice."6

If, as is but natural, we ask, how Christ came so strictly to
enjoin what was almost impossible, Luther replies that He gave
His command only for Christians, and that real Christians were
few in number : "In point of fact Christ is speaking only to His
dear Christians [when He says, ' that Christians must not go to

1 Luthardt, " Luthers Ethik," 2, p. 81.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 142, p. 280 f.

3 Cp. vol. ii., p. 107 for Luther's earlier idea of the " holy brother
hood of spirits," in which " omnia sunt indifferentia et liberal See also
vol. vi., xxxviii., 3.

4 "Werke," Erl. ed., I2, p. 108.

5 16., Weim. ed., 11, p. 255 ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 73. " Von welltlicher
Uberkeytt," 1523. G /6.

COUNSEL AND PRECEPT 59

law,' etc.], and it is they alone who take it and carry it out ;
they make no mere Counsel of it as the Sophists do, but are so
transformed by the Spirit that they do evil to no one and are
ready willingly to suffer evil from anyone." But the world is
full of non-Christians and " them the Word does not concern at
all."1 Worldlings must needs tread a very different way : " All
who are not Christians belong to the kingdom of the world and
are under the law." Since they know not the command " Resist
not evil," " God has given them another government different
from the Christian estate, and the Kingdom of God." There
ruleth coercion, severity, and, in a word, the Law, " seeing, that,
amongst a thousand, there is barely one true Christian." " If
anyone wished to govern the world according to the Gospel . . .
dear heart, what would the result be ! He would be loosening
the leashes and chains of the wild and savage beasts, and turn
ing them astray to bite and tear everybody. . . . Then the
wicked would abuse the Christian freedom of the Gospel and
work their own knavery."2

Luther clung to the very end of his life to this congeries of
contradictory theories, which he advocated in 1523, in his
passionate aversion to the ancient doctrine of perfection. In
1539 or 1540 he put forth a declaration against the " Sophists "
in defence of his theory of the " Counsels," directed more par
ticularly against the Sorbonne, which had insisted that the
" consilia evangelica," " were they regarded as precepts, would be
too heavy a burden for religion."3 " They make out the
Counsels," he says, " i.e. the commandments of God, to be not
necessary for eternal life and invite people to take idolatrous, nay,
diabolical vows. To lower the Divine precepts to the level of
counsels is a horrible, Satanic blasphemy." As a Christian " you
must rather forsake and sacrifice everything" ; to this the first
table of the Law (of Moses, the Law of the love of God) binds
you, but, on account of the second table (the law of social life),
you may and must preserve your own for the sake of your family.
As a Christian, too, you must be willing to suffer at the hands of
every man, " but, apart from your Christian profession, you must
resist evil if you wish to be a good citizen of this world."4

" Hence you see, O Christian brother," he concludes, " how
much you owe to the doctrine which has been revived in our day,
as against a Pharisaical theology which leaves us nothing even of
Moses and the Ten Commandments, and still less of Christ."

" Such honour and glory have I by the grace of God —
whether it be to the taste or not of the devil and his brood
—that, since the days of the Apostles, no doctor, scribe,
theologian or lawyer has confirmed, instructed and com
forted the consciences of the secular Estates so well and

1 Ib., p. 252 = 70. 2 /6., p. 251 = 68.

" Opp. lat. var.," 4, p. 451. 4 /&., p. 445.

60 LUTHER THE REFORMER

lucidly as I have done by the peculiar grace of God. Of this
I am confident. For neither St. Augustine nor St. Ambrose,
who are the greatest authorities in this field, are here equal
to me. . . . Such fame as this must be and remain known
to God and to men even should they go raving mad over it."1

It is true that his theories contain many an element of
good and, had he not been able to appeal to this, he could
never have spoken so feelingly on the subject.

The good which lies buried in his teaching had, however,
always received its due in Catholicism. Luther, when
contrasting the Church's alleged aversion for secular life
with his own exaltation of the dignity of the worldly calling,
frequently speaks in language both powerful and fine of the
worldly office which God has assigned to each one, not only
to the prince but even to the humble workman and tiller of
the field, and of the noble moral tasks which thus devolve
on the Christian. Yet any aversion to the world as he
conceives it had never been a principle within the Church,
though individual writers may indeed have erred in this
direction. The assertion that the olden Church, owing to
her teaching concerning the state of perfection and the
Counsels, had not made sufficient allowance for the dignity
of the secular calling, has already been fully dealt with.

It is true that Luther, to the admiration of his followers,
confronted the old Orders founded by the Church with three
new Orders, all Divinely instituted, viz. the home, the State
and the Church.2 But, so far from " notably improving "
on the " scholastic ethics " of the past, he did not even
contrive to couch his thoughts on these " Orders " in
language as lucid as that used long before his day by the
theologians and moralists of the Church in voicing the same
idea ; what he says of these " Orders " also falls short of
the past on the score of wealth and variety.3 Nevertheless
the popular ways he had of depicting things as he fain would
see them, proved alluring, and this gift of appealing to the
people's fancy and of charming them by the contrast of
new and old, helped to build up the esteem in which he has

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 31, p. 236. Verantwortung der auffgelegten
Auffrur, 1533. Cp. our vol. ii., p. 294, and vol. iv., p. 331.

2 Luthardt, " Luthers Ethik," 2, pp. 93-96.

3 Cp. vol. iv., p. 127 ff., on the high esteem of worldly callings in the
period previous to Luther's. Cp. N. Paulus, " Die Wertung der
weltlichen Berufe im MA." (" Hist. Jahrb.," 1911, p. 725 ff.).

RELIGION AND MORALS 61

been held ever since ; his inclination, moreover, to promote
the independence of the individual in the three " Orders,"
and to deliver him from all hierarchical influence must
from the outset have won him many friends.

Divorce of Religion and Morals

Glancing back at what has already been said concerning
Luther's abasement of morality and considering it in the
light of his theories of the Law and Gospel, of assurance
of salvation and morality, we find as a main characteristic
of Luther's ethics a far-reaching, dangerous rift between
religion and morals. Morality no longer stands in its old
position at the side of faith.

Faith and the religion which springs from it are by nature
closely and intimately bound up with morality. This is
shown by the history of heathenism in general, of modern
unbelief in particular. Heathenism or unbelief in national
life always signifies a moral decline ; even in private life
morality reacts on the life of faith and the religious feeling,
and vice versa. The harmony between religion and morality
arises from the fact that the love of God proceeds from faith
in His dominion and Fatherly kindness.

Luther, in spite of his assurances concerning the stimulus
of the life of faith and of love, severed the connection between
faith and morality and placed the latter far below the
former. His statements concerning faith working by love,
had they been more than mere words, would, in themselves,
have led him back to the very standpoint of the Church he
hated. In reality he regards the " Law " as something
utterly hostile to the " pious " soul ; before the true
" believer " the Law shrinks back, though, to the man not
yet justified by " faith," it serves as a taskmaster and a
hangman. The " Law " thus loses the heavenly virtue
with which it was stamped. In Luther's eyes the only thing
of any real value is that religion which consists in faith in the
forgiveness of sins.

" This," he says, " is the ' Summa Summarum of a truly
Christian life, to know that in Christ you have a Gracious God
ready to forgive you your sins and never to think of them again,
and that you are now a child of everlasting happiness, reigning
with Christ over heaven and earth."

62 LUTHER THE REFORMER

It is true he hastens to add, that, from this saving faith, works
of morality would " assuredly " flow.1

" Assuredly " ? Since Albert Ritschl it has been repeated
countless times that Luther did no more than " assert that faith
by its very nature is productive of good works." As a matter of
fact "he is wont to speak in much too uncertain a way of the
good works which follow faith " ; with him " faith " is the
whole man, whereas the Bible says : " Fear God and keep His
commandments [i.e. religion plus morality] ; this is the whole
man."2

Luther's one-sided insistence on a confiding, trusting faith in
God, at the cost of the moral work, has its root in his theory of
the utter depravity of man and his entire lack of freedom, in
his low esteem for the presuppositions of morality, in his con
viction that nature is capable of nothing, and, owing to its want
of self-determination, is unable on its own even to be moral at
all. If we desire, so he says frankly, to honour God's sublime
majesty and to humble fallen creatures as they deserve, then let
us recognise that God works all in all without any possibility of
any resistance whatsoever on man's part,, God's action being like
to that of the potter on his clay. Just as Luther was unable to
recognise justification in the sense in which it had been taught
of yore, so also he entirely failed to appreciate the profounder
conception of morality.

His strictures on morality — which had ever been esteemed as
the voluntary keeping of the Law by man, who by a generous
obedience renders to God the freedom received — point plainly
to the cause of his upheaval of the whole field of dogma. At the
outset he had set himself to oppose self-righteousness, but in
doing so he dealt a blow at righteousness itself ; he had attacked
justice by works, but justice itself had suffered ; he declared
war on the wholly imaginary phantom of a self-chosen morality
based on man-made ordinances and thereby degraded morality,
if he did not indeed undermine its very foundations.

What Mohler says of the reformers and their tendency to set
aside the commands of morality applies in particular to Luther
and his passionate campaign. It is true he writes, that " the
moral freedom they had destroyed came to involve the existence
of a freedom from that moral law which concerns only the seen,
bounded world of time, but fails to apply in the eternal world,
sot high above all time and space. This does not mean, however,

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 152, p. 42 f.

2 Cp. W. Walther, " Die christliche Sittlichkeit nach Luther," 1909,
p. 50, where Hitachi's opinion is disputed. The above complaint of
Luther's " uncertain way " is from Ritschl, who was not the first to make
it ; the Bible objection is also much older. It matters nothing that
in addition to the faith usually extolled as the source of works, Luther
also mentions the Holy Ghost (see passages in Walther, p. 46 f.) and
once even speaks of the new feeling as though it were a gift of the
Spirit dwelling in His very substance in the believer. (" Opp. lat.
exeg,." 19, p. 109 sq*) These are reminiscences of his Catholic days
and have in reality nothing to do with his doctrine of Imputation.

RELIGION AND MORALS 63

that the reformers were conscious of what lay at the base of their
system ; on the contrary, had they seen it, had they perceived
whither their doctrines were necessarily leading, they would have
rejected them as quite unchristian."1

The following reflection of the famous author of " Catholic
Symbolism " may also be set on record, the better to safeguard
against misapprehension anything that may have been said,
particularly as it touches upon a matter to which we repeatedly
have had occasion to allude.

" No one can fail to see the religious element in Protestantism,"
he says, " who calls to mind the idea of Divine Providence held
by Luther and Melanchthon when they started the work of the
Reformation. . . . All the phenomena of this world [according
to it] are God's own particular work and man is merely His
instrument. Everything in the history of the world is God's
invisible doing which man's agency merely makes visible. Who
can fail to see in this a truly religious outlook on all things ? All
is referred back to God, Who is all in all. ... In the same way
the Redeemer also is all in all in the sense that He and His Spirit
are alone active, and faith and regeneration are solely due to
Him."2

Mohler here relates how, according to Luther, Staupitz had
said of the new teaching at its inception, " What most consoles
me is that it has again been brought to light how all honour and
praise belong to God alone, but, to man, nothing at all." This
statement is quite in keeping with the vague, mystical world of
thought in which Staupitz, who was no master of theology or
philosophy, lived. But it also reflects the impression of many
of Luther's contemporaries who, unaware of his misrepresentation
of the subject, were attracted by the advantage to religion and
morality which seemed to accrue from Luther's effort to ascribe
all things solely to God.

Where this tendency to subordinate all to God and to
exalt the merits of Christ finds more chastened expression
in Luther's writings, when, in his hearty, homely fashion, he
paints the love of the Master or His virtues as the pattern of
all morality, or pictures in his own peculiar realistic style
the conditions of everyday life the better to lash abuses,
then the reader is able to appreciate the better side of his
ethics and the truly classic example he sometimes sets of
moral exhortations. It would surely be inexplicable how so
many earnest Protestant souls, from his day to our own,
should have found and still find a stimulus in his practical
works, for instance, in his Postils, did these works not really
contain a substratum of truth, food for thought and a

1 " Symbolik," § 25. 2 Ib., § 26.

64 LUTHER THE REFORMER

certain gift of inspiration. Even the man who studies the
long list of Luther's practical writings simply from the
standpoint of the scholar and historian — though he may not
always share Luther's opinions — cannot fail to acknowledge
that the warmth with which Luther speaks of those Christian
truths accepted by all, leaves a deep impression and re
echoes within the soul like a voice from our common home.

On the one hand Luther rightly retained many profoundly
religious elements of the mediaeval theology, indeed, owing
to his curious way of looking at things, he actually outdid in
medievalism the Middle Ages themselves, for he merged all
human freedom in the Divine action, a thing those Ages
had not dared to do.

And yet, on the other hand, to conclude our survey of
his " abasement of practical Christianity," he is so ultra
modern on a capital point of his ethics as to merit being
styled the precursor of modern subjectivism as applied to
morals. For all his new ethical precepts and rules, beyond
the Decalogue and the Natural Law, are devoid of ob
jective obligation ; they lack the sanction which alone
would have rendered them capable of guiding the human
conscience.

The Lack of Obligation and Sanction

Luther's moral instructions differed in one weighty par
ticular from those of the olden Church.

As he himself insists at needless length, they were a
collection of personal opinions and exhortations which
appeared to him to be based on Holy Scripture or the Law
of Nature — and in many instances, though not always,
actually did rest on this foundation. When he issued new
pronouncements of a practical character, for instance,
concerning clandestine espousals, or annulled the olden
order of public worship, the sacraments, or the Command
ments of the Church, he was wont to say, that, it was his
intention merely to advise consciences and to arouse the
Evangelical consciousness. He took this line partly because
he was conscious of having no personal authority, partly
because he wished to act according to the principles pro
claimed in his " Von der Freyheyt eynes Christen Menschen,"
or, again, in order to prevent the rise of dissent and the

LACK OF SANCTION 65

resistance he always dreaded to any attempt to lay down
categorical injunctions. Thus his ethical regulations, so far
as they differed from the olden ones, amounted merely to so
many invitations to act according to the standard set up,
whereas the character of the ethical legislation of Catholicism
is essentially binding. Having destroyed the outward
authority of the Church, he had nothing more to count upon
than the " ministry of the Word," and everything now
depended on the minister's being able to convince the
believer, now freed from the ancient trammels.

He himself, for instance, once declared that he would " assume
no authority or right to coerce, for I neither have nor desire
any such. Let him rule who will or must ; I shall instruct and
console consciences as far as I am able. Who can or wants to
obey, let him do so ; who won't or can't, let him leave it alone."1

He would act " by way of counsel," so he teaches, "as in
conscience he would wish to serve good friends, and whoever
likes to follow his advice must do so at his own risk."2 " He
gives advice agreeably to his own conscience," writes Luthardt in
" Luthers Ethik," " leaving it to others to accept his advice or
not on their own responsibility."3

Nor can one well argue that the requisite sanction for the new
moral rules was the general sanction found in the Scriptural
threats of Divine chastisements to overtake transgressors. The
question is whether the Law laid down in the Bible or written in
man's heart is really identical with Luther's. Those who were
unable of themselves to prove that this was the case were ulti
mately (so Luther implies) to believe it on his authority and
conform themselves to his " Evangelical consciousness " ; thus,
for instance, in the matter of religious vows, held by Luther to be
utterly detestable, and by the Church to be both permissible and
praiseworthy.

In but few points does the purely subjective character of
the new religion and morality advocated by Luther stand
out so clearly as in this absence of any objective sanction or
higher authority for his new ethics. Christianity hitherto
had appealed to the divine, unchangeable dignity of the
Church, which, by her infallible teaching, her discipline and
power to punish, insured the observance of law and order
in the religious domain. But, now, according to the new
teaching, man — who so sadly needs a clear and definite lead
for his moral life — besides the Decalogue, " clear " Bible

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 206 ; Erl. ed., 23, p. 95.

2 76. 3 p. 111.

V.— F

66 LUTHER THE REFORMER

text and Natural Law, is left with nothing but
mendations " devoid of any binding force ; views are dinned
into his ears the carrying out of which is left solely to his
feelings, or, as Luther says, to his " conscience."

Deprived of the quieting guidance of an authority which
proclaims moral obligations and sees that they are carried
out, conscience and personality tend in his system to
assume quite a new role.

6. The part played by Conscience and Personality. Luther's
warfare with his old friend Caspar Schwenckfeld

Protestants have confidently opined, that " Luther
mastered anew the personal foundation of morality by
reinstating conscience in its rights " ; by insisting on feeling
he came to restore to " personality the dignity " which in
previous ages it had lost under the ban of a " legalism "
devoid of " morality."

To counter such views it may be of use to give some
account of the way in which Luther taught conscience to
exercise her rights. The part he assigns to the voice within
which judges of good and evil, scarcely bears out the con
tention that he really strengthened the " foundation of
morality." The vague idea of " personality " may for the
while be identified with conscience, especially as in the
present connection " person " stands for the medium of

On Conscience and its Exercise in General

To quiet the conscience, to find some inward support for
one's actions in the exercise of one's own will, this is what
Luther constantly insists on in the moral instructions he
gives, at the same time pointing to his own example.2 What

1 Owing to his assertion of man's unfreedom and passivity, Luther
found it very difficult to retain the true meaning of conscience. So
long as he thought in any way as a Catholic he recognised the inner
voice, the " synteresis," that urges us to what is good and reproves
what is evil, leaving man freedom of choice ; this we see from his first
Commentary on the Psalms, above, vol. i., p. 76 f. But already in his
Commentary on Romans he characterised the " synteresis," and the
assumption of any freedom of choice on man's part, as the loophole
through which the old theology had dragged in its errors concerning
grace. (Above, vol. i., p. 233 f.)

2 Cp. W. Walther, " Die ehristl. Sittlichkeit," p. 31.

ON CONSCIENCE 67

was the nature of his own example ? His rebellion against
the Church's authority was to him the cause of a long, fierce
struggle with himself. He sought to allay the anxiety which
stirred his soul to its depths by the reassuring thought, that
all doubts were from the devil from whom alone all scruples
come ; he sternly bade his soul rest secure and as resolutely
refused to hearken to any doubts regarding the truth of his
new Evangel. His new and quite subjective doctrines he
defended in the most subjective way imaginable and, to
those of his friends whose consciences were troubled, he
recommends a similar course of action ; he even on several
occasions told people thus disturbed in mind whom he
wished to reassure, that they must listen to his, Luther's,
voice as though it were the voice of God. This was his
express advice to his pupil Schlaginhaufen1 and, in later
days, to his friend Spalatin, who also had become a prey to
melancholy."2 He himself claimed to have been delivered
from his terrors by having simply accepted as a God-sent
message the encouraging words of Bugenhagen.3

" Conscience is death's own cruel hangman," so he told
Spalatin ; from Ambrose and Augustine the latter should learn
to place all his trust not in conscience but in Christ. 4 It scarcely
needs stating that here he is misapplying the fine sayings of both
these Fathers. They would have repudiated with indignation
the words of consolation which not long after he offered the man
suffering from remorse of conscience, assuring him that he was as
yet a novice in struggling against conscience, and had hitherto
been " too tender a sinner " ; "join yourself to us real, big, tough
sinners, that you may not belittle and put down Christ, Who is the
Saviour, not of small, imaginary sinners, but of great and real
ones " ; thus it was that he, Luther, had once been consoled in
his sadness by Staupitz. 5 Here he is applying wrongly a perfectly
correct thought of his former Superior. Not perhaps quite false,
but at any rate thoroughly Lutheran, is the accompanying
assurance : "I stand firm [in my conscience] and maintain my
attitude, that you may lean on me in your struggle against Satan
and be supported by me."

1 Above, vol. iv., p. 227. " You are to believe without doubting
what God Himself has spoken to you, for I have God's authority and
commission to speak to and to comfort you."

2 Letter of Aug. 21, 1544, " Brief e," ed. De Wette, 5, p. 680 :
" Believe me, Christ speaks through me."

3 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 220 : " persuasi mihi, esse de coelo
vocem Dei."

4 Letter of March 8, 1544, " Briefe," ib., p. 636.

5 In the letter quoted in n. 2, ib., p. 679 f.

68 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Thus does he direct Spalatin, who was tormented by remorse,
to comfort himself against his conscience."1

" To comfort oneself against one's conscience," such is the
task which Luther, in many of his writings, proposes to the
believer. Indeed, in his eyes the chief thing of all is to " get the
better of sin, death, hell and our own conscience " ; in spite of
the opposition of reason to Luther's view of Christ's satisfaction,
we must learn, " through Him [Christ] to possess nothing but
grace and forgiveness," of course, in the sense taught at Witten
berg. 2

A former brother monk, Link, the apostate Augustinian of
Nuremberg, Luther also encourages, like Spalatin the fallen priest,
to kick against the prick of conscience : " These are devil's
thoughts and not from us, which make us despair," they must
be " left to the devil," the latter always " keeps closest to those
who are most pious " ; to yield to such despairing thoughts " is
as bad as giving in and leaving Satan supreme."3

When praising the " sole " help and consolation of the grace
of Christ he does not omit to point out, directly or otherwise, how,
" when in despair of himself," and enduring frightful inward
" sufferings " of conscience, he had hacked his way through them
all and had reached a firm faith in Christ minus all works, and had
thus become a " theologian of the Cross."4

Even at the commencement of the struggle, in order to en
courage wavering followers, he allowed to each man's conscience
the right to defy any confessor who should forbid Luther's
writings to such of his parishioners who came to him : " Absolve
me at my own risk," they were to say to him, " I shall not give
up the books, for then I should be sinning against my conscience."
He argues that, according to Rom. xiv. 1, the confessor might
not " urge them against their conscience." Was it then enough
for a man to have formed himself a conscience, for the precept
no longer to hold ? His admonition was, however, intended
merely as a counsel for " strong and courageous consciences."
If the confessor did not prove amenable, they were simply to "go
without scruple to the Sacrament," and if this, too, was refused
them then they had only to send " Sacrament and Church "
about their business. 5 Should the confessor require contrition for
sins committed, this, according to another of his statements, was
a clear attack on conscience which does not require contrition
for absolution, but merely faith in Christ ; such a priest ought to
have the keys taken out of his hands and be given a pitchfork
instead."6

i Ib. 2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 182, p. 337.

3 On July 14, 1528, " Brief weohsel," ed. Enders, 6, p. 300 f.

4 Cp. " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 354 ; " Opp. lat. var.," 1, p. 388.
Cp. vol. i., p. 319.

5 " Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 290 f. ; Erl. ed., 242, p. 209, For fuller
quotations see vol. ii., p. 58 f.

6 76., Weim. ed., 4, p. 658.

ON CONSCIENCE 69

In the above instances the Catholic could find support for
his conscience in the infallible authority of the Church. It
was this authority which forbade him Luther's writings as
heretical, and, in the case of contrition — which Luther also
brings forward — it was likewise his religious faith, which,
consonantly with man's natural feeling, demanded such
sorrow for sin. In earlier days authority and faith were the
reliable guides of conscience without which it was impossible
to do. Luther left conscience to itself or referred it to his
own words and his reading of Scripture, though this again,
as he himself acknowledged, was not an absolute rule ; thus
he leaves it a prey to a most unhappy uncertainty— unless,
indeed, it was able to " find assurance " in the way he
wishes.

Quite early in his career he also gave the following instruction
to those of the clergy who were living in concubinage on how to
form their conscience ; they were " to salve their conscience "
and take the female to their " wedded wife," even though this
were against the law, fleshly or ghostly. " Your soul's salva
tion is of more account than any tyrannical laws. . . . Let him
who has the faith to take the risk follow me boldly." " I will
not deceive him," he adds apologetically, but at least he had " the
power to advise him regarding his sins and dangers " ; he will
show them how they may do what they are doing, "but with a
good conscience."1 For as Luther points out in another passage,
even though their discarding of their supposed obligation of
celibacy had taken place with a bad conscience, still the Bible-
texts subsequently brought forward, read according to the inter
pretation of the new Evangelist, avail to heal their conscience.2
At any rate, so he tells the Teutonic Knights when inviting them
to break their vow of chastity : "on the Word of God we will
risk it and do it in the teeth of and contrary to all Councils and
Churches ! Close eyes and ears and take God's Word to heart."3
Better, he cries, go on keeping two or three prostitutes than seek
of a Council permission to marry ! 4

These were matters for " those to risk who have the faith,"
so we have heard him say. In reality all did depend on people's
faith ... in Luther, on their conviction that his doctrine and
his moral system were right.

But what voice was to decide in the case of those who
were wavering ?

On the profoundest questions of moral teaching, it is, ac-

1 Ib., Erl. ed., 21, p. 324. 2 Ib., 28, p. 224.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 237 ; Erl. ed., 29, p. 25.

4 Ib., Erl. ed., 29, p. 23 ; cp. above, vol. iii., p. 262 ff.

70 LUTHER THE REFORMER

cording to Luther, the "inward judgment " that is to decide
what " spirit " must be followed. " For every Christian,"
he writes, " is enlightened in heart and conscience by the
Holy Ghost and by God's Grace in such a way as to be able
to judge and decide with the utmost certainty on all
doctrines." It is to this that the Apostle refers when he
says : " A spiritual man judges all things " (1 Cor. iii. 15).
Beyond this, moreover, Scripture constitutes an " outward
judgment " whereby the Spirit is able to convince men, it
being a "ghostly light, much brighter than the sun."1 It
is highly important "to be certain " of the meaning of the
Bible,2 though here Luther's own interpretation was,
needless to say, to hold the field. The preachers instructed
by him were to say : "I know that the doctrine is right in
God's sight " and " boast " of the inward certainty they
shared with him.3

Luther's rules for the guidance of conscience in other
matters were quite similar. Subjectivism becomes a regular
system for the guidance of conscience. In this sense it was
to the person that the final decision was left. But whether
this isolation of man from man, this snatching of the
individual from dutiful submission to an authority holding
God's place, was really a gain to the individual, to religion
and to society, or not rather the reverse, is only to be
settled in the light of the history of private judgment
which was the outcome of Luther's new principle.

Of himself Luther repeats again and again, that his knowledge
and conscience alone sufficed to prove the truth of his position ; 4
that he had won this assurance at the cost of his struggles with
conscience and the devil. Ulenberg, the old writer, speaking of
these utterances in his "Life of Luther,"5 says that his hero
mastered his conscience when at the Wartburg, and, from that
time, believed more firmly than ever that he had gained this
assurance by a Divine revelation (" ccelesti quadam revelatione"),
for which reason he had then written to his Elector that he had
received his lead solely from heaven.6

In matters of conscience wherever the troublesome " Law "

" Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 653 ; " Opp. lat. var.," 7, p. 176 sq.

Ib., Erl. ed., 58, pp. 394-398.

" Werke," Weim. ed., 17, 1, p. 232 ; Erl. ed., 39, p. 111. Should
a p eacher be unable thus to " boast," he is to " hold his tongue," so we
read there.

See, e.g., vol. iii., pp. 110 ff.-158 f.

" Vita Lutheri," Colonise, 1622, p. 141.

Above, vol. iii., p. 111.

ON CONSCIENCE 71

comes in we can always trace the devil's influence ; we " must
come to grips with him and fight him,"1 only the man who has
been through the mill, as he himself had, could boast of having
any certainty : " The devil is a juggler. Unless God helps us,
our work and counsel is of no account ; whether we turn right
or left he remains the Prince of this world. Let him who does
not know this just try. I have had some experience of this. But
let no one believe me until he too has experienced it."2

Not merely in the case of his life-work in general, but even in
individual matters of importance, the inward struggles and
" agonies " through which he had passed .were signs by which
to recognise that he was in the right. Thus, for instance, referring
to his hostile action in Agricola's case, Luther says : " Oh, how
many pangs and agonies did I endure about this business. I
almost died of anxiety before I brought these propositions out
into the light of day."3 Hence it was plain, he argued, how far
he was from the palpable arrogance displayed by his Antinornian
foe, and how evidently his present conduct was willed by God.

The Help of Conscience at Critical Junctures

It was the part played by subjectivism in Luther's ethics
that led him in certain circumstances to extend suspiciously
the rights of " conscience."

In the matter of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse he soothed
the Elector of Saxony by telling him he must ignore the
general outcry, since the Landgrave had acted " from his
need of conscience " ; in his " conscience " the Prince
regarded his " wedded concubine " as "no mere prostitute."
" By God's Grace I am well able to distinguish between
what by way of grace and before God may be permitted in
the case of a troubled conscience and what, apart from such
need of conscience, is not right before God in outward
matters."4 In his extreme embarrassment, consequent on
this matrimonial tangle, Luther deemed it necessary to make
so hair-splitting a distinction between lawfulness and per
missibility when need of conscience required it. The
explanation — that, in such cases, something must be con
ceded " before God and by way of grace " — which he offers
together with the Old-Testament texts as justifying the
bigamy, must look like a fatal concession to laxity.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 f. ; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19.

2 Ib., p. 70 = 20'. 3 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 22.

4 On July 24, 1540, " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 274. Above,
vol. iv., p. 13 ff.

72 LUTHER THE REFORMER

He also appealed to conscience in another marriage
question where he made the lawfulness of bigamy depend
entirely on the conscience.

A man, who, owing to his wife's illness was prevented from
matrimonial intercourse, wished, on the strength of Carlstadt's
advice, to take a second wife. Luther thereupon wrote to
Chancellor Briick, on Jan. 27, 1524, telling him the Prince should
reply as follows : " The husband must be sure and convinced in
his own conscience by means of the Word of God that it is lawful
in his case. Therefore let him seek out such men as may convince
him by the Word of God, whether Carlstadt [who was then in dis
grace at Court], or some other, matters not at all to the Prince.
For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission
of the Prince will not make him so ; nor is it for the Prince to
decide on this point, for it is the priests' business to expound the
Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of
the Lord must be learned. I, for my part, admit I can raise
no objection if a man wishes to take several wives since Holy
Scripture does not forbid this ; but I should not like to see this
example introduced amongst Christians. ... It does not beseem
Christians to seize greedily and for their own advantage on every
thing to which their freedom gives them a right. . . . No Chris
tian surely is so God-forsaken as not to be able to practise con
tinence when his partner, owing to the Divine dispensation,
proves unfit for matrimony. Still, we may well let things take
their course."1

On the occasion of his own marriage with Bora we may re
member how he had declared with that defiance of which he was
a past master, that he would take the step the better to with
stand the devil and all his foes. (Vol. ii., p. 175 ff.)

A curious echo of the way in which he could set conscience at
defiance is to be met with in his instructions to his assistant
Justus Jonas, who, as soon as his first wife was dead, cast about
for a second. Luther at first was aghast, owing to Biblical
scruples, at the scandal which second marriages on the part of the
regents of the Church would give and entreated him at least to
wait a while. When he found it impossible to dissuade Jonas, he
warned him of the " malicious gossip of our foes," " who are ever
eager to make capital out of our example " ; nevertheless, he goes
on to say that he had nothing else to urge against another union,
so long as Jonas " felt within himself that spirit of defiance
which would enable him, after the step, to ignore all the outcry
and the hate of all the devils and of men, and not to attempt, nay,
to scorn any effort to stop the mouths of men, or to crave their
favour."2

1 To Chancellor Briick, " Brief wechsel," 4, p. 282 : " Oportere ipsum
maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac cerium per verbum Dei,
sibi hcec licere." Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 259 f.

2 Letter to Jonas, May 4, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 556.

ON CONSCIENCE 73

The " spirit of defiance " which he here requires as a
condition for the step becomes elsewhere a sort of mystical
inspiration which may justify an action of doubtful morality.

Granted the presence of this inspiration he regards as per
missible what otherwise would not be so. In a note sent to the
Elector of Saxony at the time of the Diet of Augsburg regarding
the question whether it was allowed to offer armed resistance to
the Emperor, we find this idea expressed in remarkable words.
Till then Luther had looked upon resistance as forbidden. The
predicament of his cause, now endangered by the warlike threats
of the Emperor, led him to think of resistance. He writes : If
the Elector wishes to take up arms " he must do so under the
influence of a singular spirit and faith ( ' vocante aliquo singulari
spiritu et fide '). Otherwise he must yield to superior force and
suffer death together with the other Christians of his faith."1 It
is plain that there would have been but little difficulty in finding
the peculiar mystical inspiration required ; no less plain is it,
that, once this back door had been opened " inspiration " would
soon usurp the place of conscience and justify steps, that, in them
selves, were of a questionable character.

Conscience in the Religious Question of the Day

The new method of dealing with conscience is more
closely connected with Luther's new method of inducing
faith than might at first sight appear.

The individualism he proclaimed in matters of faith embodied
the principle, that " each one must, in his own way, lay hold on
religious experience and thus attain religious conviction." 2 Luther
often says, in his idealistic way, that only thus is it possible to
arrive at the supreme goal, viz. to feel one's faith within as a kind
of inspiration ; our aim must ever be to feel it " surely and im
mutably " in our conscience and in all the powers of our soul.3

1 Text in G. Berbig (" Quellen und Darstellungen aus der Gesch.
des Reformationszeitalters," Leipzig, 1908), p. 277 (cp. Enders,
" Brief wechsel," 4, p. 76 f.). This statement completes what was said
in vol. iii., p. 55.

2 Karl Stange, " Die altesten ethischen Disputationen Luthers,"
1904, p. vii.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23 ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.—" He
ventured, relying on Christ," says Adolf Harnack (" DG.," 34, p. 824),
" to lay hold on God Himself, and, by this exercise of his faith, in
which he saw God's work, his whole being gained in independence and
firmness, and he acquired such confidence and joy as no man in the
Middle Ages had ever known." Of Luther's struggles of conscience, to
be examined more closely in ch. xxxii., Harnack says nothing. On the
other hand, however, he quotes, on p. 825, n. 1, the following words
of Luther's : " Such a faith alone makes a Christian which risks all on
God whether in life or death."

74 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Everything must depend on this experience, the more so as to
him faith means something very different from what it means to
Catholics ; it is, he says, " no taking it all for true " ; " for that
would not be Christian faith but more an opinion than faith " ;
on the contrary, each one must believe that "he is one of those
on whom such grace and mercy is bestowed."1 Now, such a faith,
no matter how profound and immutable the feeling be, cannot
be reached except at the cost of a certain violence to conscience ;
such coercion is, in fact, essential owing to the nature of this faith
in personal salvation.

What, according to Luther, is the general character of faith ?
Fear and struggles, so he teaches, are not merely its usual ac
companiments, but are also the " sure sign that the Word has
touched and moved you, that it exercises, urges and compels
you " ; nay, Confession and Communion are really meant only
for such troubled ones, " otherwise there would be no need of
them " — i.e. they would not be necessary unless there existed
despair of conscience and anxiety concerning faith. It was a
mistaken practice, he continues, for many to refrain from
receiving the Sacrament, " preferring to wait until they feel the
faith within their heart " ; in this way all desire to receive is
extinguished ; people should rather approach even when they
feel not at all their faith ; then " you will feel more and more
attracted towards it "2 — though this again, according to Luther,
is by no means quite certain.

The " inward experience of faith " too often becomes simply
the dictate of one's whim. But a whim and order to oneself to
think this or that does not constitute faith as the word is used in
revelation, nor does a command imposed on the inward sense of
right and wrong amount to a pronouncement of conscience.

Though Luther often held up himself and his temptations
regarding faith, as an example which might comfort waverers,
Protestants have nevertheless praised him for the supposed
firmness of his faith and for his joy of conscience. But was not his
" defiant faith " really identical with that imposition he was wont
to practise on his conscience and to dignify by the name of
inspiration ?

Yet, in spite of all, he never found a secure foundation. " I
know what it costs me, for I have daily to struggle with myself,"
he told his friends in 1538.3 " I was scarcely able to bring my
self to believe," he said in a sermon of the same year, " that the
doctrine of the Pope and the Fathers was all wrong."4 His faith
was as insecurely fixed, so he quaintly bewailed on another
occasion, " as the fur trimming on his sleeve."5 " Who believes

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 72, p. 253 f.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., II2, p. 248 f.

3 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch " : "in quotidiana versor lucta." On
Feb. 26.

4 " Luthers ungedruckte Predigten," ed. G. Buchwald, Leipzig,
1885, 3, p. 245. Sermon of March 16, 1538.

5 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 56.

ON CONSCIENCE 75

such things ? " he asks, wildly implicating all people in general,
at the conclusion of a note jotted down in a Bible and alluding
to the hope of Kfe everlasting.1 In 1529 he repeatedly describes
to his friends how Satan tempts him (" Satanas fatigat ") with
lack of faith and despair, how he was sunk in unspeakable
" bitterness of soul," and, how, for this reason as he once says, he
was scarce able " with a trembling hand " to write to them.2

Calvin, too, was aware of the frequent terrors Luther endured.
When Pighius, the Catholic writer, alleged Luther's struggles of
conscience and temptations concerning the faith as disproving
his authority, Calvin took good care not to deny them. He
boldly replied that this only redounded to Luther's honour since
it was the experience of all devout people, and particularly of the
most famous divines.3

Was it possible, according to Luther, to be conscientiously
opposed to his teaching on faith and morals ? At least in
theory, he does go so far in certain statements as to recognise
the possibility of such conscientious scruples. In these
utterances he would even appear to surrender the whole
weight and authority of his theological and ethical dis
coveries, fundamental though they were to his innovations.
" I have served the Church zealously with what God has
given me and what I owe to Him. Whoever does not care
for it, let him read or listen to others. It matters but little
should they feel no need of me."4 With regard to public
worship, it is left " to each one to make up his conscience as
to how he shall use his freedom." " I am not your preacher,"
so he wrote to the " Strasburg Christians," who were
inclined to distrust his exclusiveness ; "no one is bound to
believe me ; let each man look to himself " ;5 all are to be
referred "from Luther," "to Christ."6

Such statements, however, cannot stand against his
constant insistence on his Divine mission ; they are rather

1 " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6. p. 411.

2 To Amsdorf, Oct. 18 (?), 1529, " Briefwechsel," 7, p. 173.

3 Cp. A. Zahn, " Calvins Urteile iiber Luther " (" Theol. Stud, aus
Wiirttemberg," 4, 1883), p. 187. Pighius had written against Luther
in 1543 on the servitude of the will. Cp., ib., p. 193, Calvin's remark
against Gabriel de Saconay.

4 The words can be better understood when we bear in mind that
they occur in the dedication to Duke Johann of Saxony, of his " Sermon
von den guten Wercken " (March 29, 1520). " Werke," Weim. ed., 6,
p. 203 ; Erl. ed., 162. p. 122 f.

6 " Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 273 (" Briefwechsel," 5, p. 83). Here
also we must remember that he is speaking to preachers, some of whom
differed from him. 6 Ib., 53, p. 276.

76 LUTHER THE REFORMER

of psychological interest as showing how suddenly he passes
from one idea to another. Moreover, his statement last
mentioned, often instanced by Protestants as testifying to
his breadth of mind, is nullified almost on the same page by
the solemn assurance, that, his " Gospel is the true Gospel "
and that everything that contradicts it is " heresy," for,
indeed, as had been foretold by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor.
xi. 19), " heresies " must needs arise.1

And, in point of fact, those teachers who felt themselves
bound in conscience to differ from him and go their own way
—for instance, the " Sacramentarians " in their interpreta
tion of the words of consecration — were made to smart. Of
this the example of Schwenckfeld was a new and striking
proof.

The contradiction presented on the one hand by Luther's
disposition to grant the most absolute freedom of conscience,
and on the other by his rigid exclusiveness, is aptly described
by Friedrich Paulsen : "In the region of morals Luther
leaves the decision to the individual conscience as instructed
by the Word of God. To rely on human authority in
questions of morals appeared to him not much better than
blasphemy. . . . True enough, however, this very Luther,
at a later date, attacked those whose conscience found in
God's Word doctrines at all different from those taught at
Wittenberg."2

Hence, neither to the heretics in his own camp nor to the
adherents of the olden faith would he allow the right of
private judgment, so greatly extolled both by himself and
his followers. Nothing had been dearer to the people of
mediaeval times, who for all their love of freedom were
faithful children of the Church, than regard and esteem for
the rights of personality in its own domain. Personality,
denoting man's unfettered and reasonable nature stamped
with its own peculiar individuality, is assuredly something
noble. The Catholic Church, far from setting limits to the
development of personality, promoted both its real freedom
and the growth of individuality in ways suited to man's
nature and his supernatural vocation. Even the monastic
life, so odious to Luther, was anything but " hostile to the
ideal of personality." An impartial observer, prepared to

1 Ib., p. 272.

2 " Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichtes," I2, 1896, p. 174, n.

ON CONSCIENCE 77

disregard fortuitous abuses, could have seen even then, that
the religious life strives after the fairest fruits of ethical
personality, which are fostered by the very sacrifice -of self-
will : Obedience is but a sacrifice "made in the interests of
personality."1 Mere wilfulness and the spirit of " defiance,"
ever ready to overstep the bounds set by reason and grace,
creates, not a person, but a " superman," whose existence
we could well spare ; of such a being Luther's behaviour
reminds us more than once.

After all we have said it would be superfluous to deal in
detail with the opinion expressed above (p. 66) by certain
Protestant judges, viz. that Luther reinstated conscience,
which had fallen into the toils of " legalism," and set it again
on its " true basis," insisting on " feeling " and on real
"morality." Nor shall we enquire whether it is seriously
implied, that, before Luther's day, people were not aware
that the mere " legality " of a deed did not suffice unless
first of all morality was recognised as the true guide of
conduct.

We may repeat yet once again that Luther was not the
first to brand " outward holiness-by-works " in the sphere
of morality.2 Berthold of Ratisbon, whose voice re-echoed
through the whole of Germany, summing up the teaching of
the mediaeval moral theologians, reprobates most sternly
any false confidence in outward deeds. No heaping up of
external works, no matter how eager, can, according to him,
prove of any profit to the soul, not even if the sinner, after
unheard-of macerations, goes loaded with chains on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem and there lays himself down to die
within the very sepulchre of the Lord ; all that, so he points
out with an eloquence all his own, would be thrown away
were there lacking the inward spirit of love and contrition for
the sins committed.

The doctrine on contrition of the earlier Catholic theo
logians and popular writers, which we have already had
occasion to review, forms an excellent test when compared
with Luther's own, by which to decide the question : Which
is the outward and which the inward morality ? Their

1 F. Sawicki, " Kath. Kirche und sittliche Personlichkeit," Cologne,
1907, pp. 86, 88, and " Das Problem der Personlichkeit und des Uber-
menschen," Paderborn, 1909 ; J. Mausbach, " Die kath. Moral und
ihre Gegner,3", Cologne, 1911. Part 2, particularly pp. 125 ff., 223 ff.

2 See vol. iv., p. 118 ff.

78 LUTHER THE REFORMER

doctrine is based both on Scripture and on the traditions
of antiquity. Similarly the Catholic teaching on moral self-
adaptation to Christ, such as we find it, for instance, in
St. Benedict's Prologue to his world-famous Rule, that text
book of the mediaeval ascetics, in the models and examples
of the Fathers and even in the popular Catholic works of
piety so widely read in Luther's day, strikingly confutes
the charge, that, by the stress it laid on certain command
ments and practices, Catholicism proved it had lost sight
of "the existence of a living personal morality " and that it
fell to Luther once more to recall to life this ideal. The
imitation of Christ in the spirit of love was undoubtedly
regarded as the highest aim of morality, and this aim
necessarily included " personal morality " in its most real
sense, and Luther was not in the least necessity of inaugurat
ing any new ideals of virtue.

Luther's Warfare with his old friend Caspar Schwenckfeld

Caspar Schwenckfeld, a man of noble birth hailing from
Ossig near Liiben in Silesia, after having studied at Cologne,
Frankfurt-on-the-Oder and perhaps also at Erfurt, was, in
1519, won over by Luther's writings to the religious innova
tions. Being idealistically inclined, the Wittenberg preach
ing against formalism in religion and on the need of returning
to a truly spiritual understanding of the Bible roused him
to enthusiasm. He attempted, with rather more logic than
Luther, to put in practice the latter's admonitions con
cerning the inward life and therefore started a movement,
half pietist, half mystic, for bringing together those who had
been really awakened.

Schwenckfeld was a man of broad mind, with considerable
independence of judgment and of a noble and generous
disposition. His good position in the world gave him what
many of the other Lutheran leaders lacked, viz. a free hand.
His frank criticism did not spare the faults in their preaching.
The sight of the sordid elements which attached themselves
to Luther strengthened him in his resolve to establish
communities — first of all in Silesia — modelled on the very
lines roughly sketched by Luther, which should present a
picture of the apostolic age of the Church. The Duke of
Silesia and many of the nobility were induced to desert

CASPAR SCHWENCKFELD 79

Catholicism, and a wide field was won in Silesia for the new
ideals of Wittenberg.

In spite of his high esteem for Luther, Schwenckfeld
wrote, in 1523: It is evident "that little improvement can
be discerned emerging from the new teaching, and that those
who boast of the Evangel lead a bad and scandalous life. . . .
This moves us not a little, indeed pierces our heart when
we hear of it."1 To the Duke he dedicated, in 1524, a writing
entitled : " An exhortation regarding the misuse of sundry
notable Articles of the Evangel, through the wrong under
standing of which the common man is led into the freedom
of the flesh and into error." The book forms a valuable
source of information on the religious state of the people at
the time of the rise of Lutheranism. Therein he laments,
with deep feeling and with an able pen, that so many
Lutherans were being influenced by the most worldly of
motives, and that a pernicious tendency towards freedom
from social restrictions was rife amongst them.2

Though Schwenckfeld was all his life equally averse to the
demagogue Anabaptist movement and to Zwinglianism
with its rationalistic tendency, yet his fate led him into
ways very much like theirs. Together with his associate
Valentine Krautwald, a former precentor, he attacked the
Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, giving, however,
a new interpretation of the words of Institution, different
from that of Zwingli'and (Ecolampadius. To the fanaticism
of the Anabaptists he approximated by his opposition to
any organised Church, to the sacraments as means of grace,
and to all that appeared to him to deviate from the spirit
of the Apostolic Church.

He besought Luther in a personal interview at Witten
berg, on Dec. 1, 1525, to agree to his doctrine of the Sacra
ment, explaining to hirii at the same time its affinity with
his supposedly profounder conception of the atonement, the
sacraments and the life of Christ as followed in his com
munities ; he also invited him in fiery words to throw over
the popular churches in which all the people received the

1 " A study of the earliest Letters of C. Schwenckfeld," Leipzig,
1907 (vol. i. of the "Corpus Schwenckfeldianorum "), p. 268. Karl
Ecke, " Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen
Reformation," Berlin, 1911, p. 58.

2 Cp. Ecke, ib., p. 59. Ecke (p. viii.) speaks of this writing as a
" first-rate source."

80 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Supper and rather to establish congregations of awakened
Christians. Luther, though in no unfriendly manner, put
him off ; throughout the interview he addressed him as
" Dear Caspar," but he flatly refused to give any opinion.
According to Schwenckfeld's own account he even allowed
that his doctrine of the Sacrament was " plausible "... if
only it could be proved, and, on parting, whispered in his
ear : " Keep quiet for a while."1

When, however, the Sacramentarian movement began to
assume alarming dimensions, and the Swiss started quoting
Schwenckfeld in favour of their view of the Sacrament,
Luther was exasperated and began to assail his Silesian
fellow-worker. His indignation was increased by certain
charges against the nobleman which reached him from
outside sources. He replied on April 14, 1526, to certain
writings sent him by Schwenckfeld and Krautwald by an
unconditional refusal to agree, though he did so briefly and
with reserve.2 On Jan. 4, of the same year, referring to
Zwingli, CEcolampadius and Schwenckfeld in a writing to
the " Christians of Reutlingen " directed against the Sacra-
mentarians he said : " Just behold and comprehend the devil
and his coarseness " ; in it he had included Schwenckfeld,
though without naming him, as a " spirit and head " among
the three who were attacking the Sacrament.3

From that time onward the Silesian appeared to him one
of the most dangerous of heretics. He no longer admitted
in his case the rights of conscience and private judgment
which Luther claimed so loudly for himself and defended
in the case of his friends, and to which Schwenckfeld now
appealed. It was nothing to him that on many occasions,
and even till his death, Schwenckfeld expressed the highest
esteem for Luther and gratitude for his services in opening
up a better way of theology.

" Dr. Martin," Schwenckfeld wrote in 1528, " I would most
gladly have spared, if only my conscience had allowed it, for I
know, praise be to God, what I owe to him."4

1 " Epistolar Schwenckfelds," 2, 2, 1570, p. 94 ff. For full title see
Ecke, ib., p. 11. Cp. Th. Kolde, " Zeitschr. fur KG.," 13, p. 552 ff.
Cp. below, p. 138 f.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 383 (" Brief wechsel," 5, p. 337).

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 19, p. 123 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 362 (" Brief-
wechsel," 5, p. 302).

« " Epistolar," ib., p. 645. Ecke, p. 87.

CASPAR SCHWENCKFELD 81

It was his purpose to pursue the paths along which Luther
had at first striven to reach a new world. " A new world is being
born and the old is dying," so he wrote in 1528. x This new world
he sought within man, but with the same mistaken enthusiasm
with which he taught the new resurrection to life. The Divine
powers there at work he fancied were the Holy Ghost, the Word
of God and the Blood of the all-powerful Jesus. The latter he
wished to reinstate in person as the sole ruler of the Church ; in
raising up to life and in supporting it, Jesus was ministering
personally. According to him Christ's manhood was not the
same as a creature's ; he deified it to such an extent Jas tojdis-
solve it, thus laying himself open to the charge of Eutychianism.
Regeneration in baptism to him seemed nothing, compared with
Christ's raising up of the adult to life.

He would have it that he himself had passed, in 1527, through
an overwhelming spiritual experience, the chief crisis of his life,
when God, as he says, made him " partaker of the heavenly
calling, received him into His favour, and bestowed upon him
a good and joyful conscience and knowledge."2 On his "con
science and knowledge " he insisted from that time with blinded
prejudice, and taught his followers, likewise with a joyful con
science to embrace the illumination from on high. He adhered
with greater consistency than Luther to the thesis that everyone
who has been enlightened has the right to judge of doctrine ;
no " outward office or preaching " might stand in the way of
such a one. To each there comes some upheaval of his earthly
destiny ; it is then that we receive the infusion of the knowledge
of salvation given by the Spirit, and of faith in the presence of
Christ the God-man ; it is a spiritual revelation which fortifies
the conscience by the absolute certainty of salvation and guides
a man in the freedom of the Spirit through all the scruples of
conscience he meets in his moral life. His system also comprises
a theory of practically complete immunity from sin.3

No other mind has given such bold expression as Schwenckfeld
to the individualism or subjectivism which Luther originally
taught ; no one has ever attempted to calm consciences and
fortify them against the arbitrariness of religious feeling in words
more sympathetic and moving.

Carl Ecke,4 his most recent biographer, who is full of admira
tion for him, says quite truly of the close connection between
Schwenckfeld and the earlier Luther, that the chief leaders of the
incipient Protestant Church, estimable men though some of them
were, nevertheless misunderstood and repulsed one of the most
promising Christians of the Reformation age. When he charged
them with want of logic in their reforming efforts they regarded
it as the fanaticism of an ignoramus. ... In Schwenckfeld
16th-century Protestantism nipped in the bud the Christian

1 Ecke takes these words as his motto on the title-page.

2 " Epistolar," 1, 1566, p. 200. Cp. on the " experience," Ecke,
p. 48 ff.

3 Ecke, p. 118 f. 4 See above, p. 79, n. 1.

v.— G

82 LUTHER THE REFORMER

individualism of the early ages rediscovered by Luther, in which
lay the hope of a higher unity."1

In 1529, two years after his great interior experience,
Schwenckfeld left his home, and, on a hint from the Duke
of Silesia, severed his connection with him, being unwilling
to expose him to the risk of persecution. Thereafter he led
a wandering existence for thirty years ; until his seventy-
second year he lived with strangers at Strasburg, Esslingen,
Augsburg, Spires, Ulm and elsewhere. After 1540, when the
Lutheran theologians at Schmalkalden published an admo
nition against him, his history was more that of a " fugitive "
than a mere " wanderer."2

Still, he was untiringly active in furthering his cause by
means of lectures and circular letters, as well as by an
extensive private correspondence. He scattered the seeds
of his peculiar doctrines amongst the nobility in particular
and their dependents in country parts. Many people of
standing either belonged or were well-disposed to his school,
as Duke Christopher of Wiirtemberg wrote in 1564 ; accord
ing to him there were many at Augsburg and Nuremberg,
in the Tyrol, in Allgau, Silesia and one part of the Mark.3
" The well-known intolerance of the Reformation and of its
preachers," remarks the Protestant historian of Schwenck
feld, " could not endure in their body a man who had his
own views on the Sacraments and refused for conscience
sake to take part in the practices of their Church. . . . He
wandered, like a hunted deer, without hearth or home,
through the cities and forests of South Germany, pursued
by Luther and the preachers."4 As late as 1558 Melanchthon
incited the authorities against him, declaring that " such
sophistry as his requires to be severely dealt with by the
princes."5

Not long after Schwenckfeld departed this life at Ulm in
1561. His numerous following in Silesia migrated, first to
Saxony, then to Holland and England, and finally to
Pennsylvania, where they still exist to this day.

1 P. 222.

2 Thus G. Kawerau in his sketch of Schwenckfeld in Holler's " KG.,"
33, p. 475.

3 16., p. 478. 4 Ecke, p. 217.

6 " Corp. ref.," 9, p. 579 : " Heri Stenckfeldianum librum contra me
scriptum accepi. . . . Talis sophistica principum severitate compescenda
est" To G. Buchholzer, Aug. 5, 1558.

CASPAR SCHWENCKFELD 83

Luther's indignation against Schwenckfeld knew no
bounds. In conversation he spoke of him as Swinesfield,1
and, in his addresses and writings, still more commonly as
Stinkfield, a name which was also repeatedly applied by his
followers to the man they so disliked.2

In his Table-Talk Luther refers to that " rascal Schwenckfeld,"
who was the instigator of numerous errors and deceives many
people with his " honeyed words." 3 He, like the fanatics, so Luther
complains, despises " the spoken word," and yet God willed " to
deal with and work in us by such means."4

In 1540 he told his friends that Schwenckfeld was unworthy
of being refuted by him, no less unworthy than Sebastian Frank,
another gifted and independent critic of Luther and Lutheranism.5

In 1543, when Schwenckfeld attempted to make advances to
Luther and sent him a tract together with a letter, Luther sent
down to the messenger a card on which he acknowledged the
receipt of the book, but declared that " the senseless fool, beset
as he is by the devil, understands nothing and does not even
know what he is talking about." He had better leave him,
Luther, alone and not worry him with his " booklets, which the
devil himself discharges through him." In the last lines he
invokes a sort of curse on Schwenckfeld, and all " Sacramen-
tarians and Eutychians " of whom it had been said in the Bible
(Jer. xxiii. 21) : "I did not send prophets, yet they ran : I have
not spoken to them, yet they prophesy."6

When giving vent to his grudge against Schwenckfeld in his
Table-Talk shortly after this, he declared : " He is a poor crea
ture, with neither talent nor an enlightened spirit. . . . He
bespirts the people with the grand name of Christ. . . . The
dreamer has stolen a few phrases from my book, ' De ultimis verbis
Davidis ' [of 1543], and with these the poor wretch seeks to make
a great show." It was on this occasion that Catherine Bora took
exception to a word used by her husband, declaring that it was
" too coarse."7

In his " Kurtz Bekentnis vom heiligen Sacrament " (1545)
Luther again gives vigorous expression to his aversion to
the " Fanatics and foes of the Sacrament, Carlstadt, Zwingii,
(Ecolampadius and ' Stinkfield ' " ; they were heretics
" whom he had warned sufficiently " and who were to be
avoided.8 He had refused to listen to or to answer that

1 Cordatus, " Tagebuch," p. 337.

2 Cp. below, and above, p. b2, n. 5 ; also Ecke, p. 218.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 61, p. 54. 4 Ib., 57, p. 51.

5 Mathesius, " Tischreden," ed. Kroker, p. 167.

6 " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 5, p. 613. " Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 29.
Cp. Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 335.

7 Mathesius, " Tischreden," ib.

8 " Werke," Erl. ed., 32, p. 397.

84 LUTHER THE REFORMER

" slanderer Schwenckfeld " because everything was wasted
on him. " This you may well tell those among whom, no
doubt, Stinkfield makes my name to stink. I like being
abused by such slanderers." If by their attacks upon the
Sacrament they call the " Master of the house Beelzebub,
how should they not abuse His household ? '51

7. Self-Improvement and the Reformation of the Church

Self-betterment, by the leading of a Christian life and,
particularly, by striving after Christian perfection, had in
Catholic times been inculcated by many writers and even
by first-rank theologians. In this field it was usual to
take for granted, both in popular manuals and in learned
treatises, as the general conviction, that religion teaches
people to strive after what is highest, whether in each
one's ordinary duties of daily life, or in the ecclesiastical or
religious state. The power of the moral teaching was to
stand revealed in the struggle after the ideal thus set forth.

Did Luther Found a School of True Christian Life ?

Luther, of set purpose, refused to make any attempt to
found, in the strict sense of the term, a spiritual school of
Christian life or perfection. He ever found it a difficult
matter even to give any methodical instructions to this end.

Though he dealt fully and attractively with many details
of life, not only in his sermons and commentaries, but also in
special writings which still serve as inspirations to practical
Christianity, yet he would never consent to draft anything
in the shape of a system for reaching virtue, still less for
attaining perfection. On one occasion he even deliberately
refused his friend Bugenhagen's request that he would
sketch out a rule of Christian life, appealing to his well-
known thesis that " the true Christian has no need of rules
for his conduct, for the spirit of faith guides him to do all
that God requires and that brotherly love demands of him."2

It may indeed be urged that his failure to bequeath to
posterity any regular guide to the spiritual life was due to
lack of time, that his active and unremitting struggle with

1 "Werke," ib., 32, p. 411.

2 1520 or beginning of 1521. " Brief wechsel," 3, p. 37. Cp., how
ever, Ender's remark on the authorship.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 85

his opponents left him no leisure, and, in point of fact, it is
quite true that his controversy did deprive him of the
requisite freedom and peace of mind. It may also be
allowed that no one man can do everything and that Luther
had not the methodical mind needed for such a task, which,
in his case, was rendered doubly hard by his revolution in
doctrine. The main ground, however, is that there were too
many divergent elements in his moral teaching which it was
impossible to harmonize ; so much in it was false and awry
that no logical combination of the whole was possible.
Hence his readiness to invoke the theory, which really
sprung from the very depths of his ethics, viz. that the true
Christian has no need of rules because everything he has to
do is the natural outcome of faith.

In his "Sermon von den guten Wercken " (1520), he
expressed this in a way that could not fail to find a following,
though it could hardly be described as in the interests of
moral effort. Each one must take as his first rule of conduct,
not on any account to bind himself, but to keep himself free
from all troublesome laws. The very title of the tract in
question, so frequently reprinted during Luther's lifetime,
would have led people to expect to find in it his practical
views on ethics. Characteristically enough, instead of
attempting to define the exact nature and value of moral
effort, Luther penned what, in reality, was merely an
appendix to his new doctrine on faith. He himself, in his
dedication of it to Duke Johann of Saxony, admits this of
the first and principal part : " Here I have striven to show
how we must exercise and make use of faith in all our good
works and consider it as the chief est of works. If God allows
me I shall at some other time deal with faith itself, how we
must each day pray and speak it."1

As, however, no other of Luther's writings contains so
many elements of moral teaching drawn from his theology,
some further remarks on it may here be in place, especially
as he himself set such store on the sermon, that, while
engaged on it, referring evidently to the first part, he wrote
to Spalatin, that, in his opinion it " would be the best thing
he had yet published."2 Kostlin felt justified in saying :
" The whole sermon may be termed the Reformer's first

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 204 ; Erl. ed., 16, 2 p. 123.

2 On March 25, 1520, " Brief wechsel," 2, p. 366.

86 LUTHER THE REFORMER

exposition and vindication of the Evangelical teaching on
morals."1

Starting from his doctrine that good works are only those
which God has commanded, and that the highest is " faith, or
trust in God's mercy,"2 he endeavours to show, agreeably to his
usual idea, that from faith the works proceed, and for this
reason he lingers over the first four commandments of the
Decalogue. He explains the principle that faith knows no idle
ness. By this faith the believer is inwardly set free from the laws
and ceremonies by which men were driven to perform good
works. If faith reigned in all, then of such there would no longer
be any need. The Christian must perform good works, but he is
free to perform works of any kind, no man being bound to one
or any work, though he finds no fault with those who bind them
selves.3 " Here we see, that, by faith, every work and thing is
lawful to a Christian, though, because the others do not yet
believe, he bears with them and performs even what he knows is
not really binding."4 Faith issues in works and all works come
back to faith, to strengthen the assurance of salvation.5

His explanation of the 3rd Commandment, where he speaks of
the ghostly Sabbath of the soul and of the putting to death of the
old man, seems like an attempt to lay down some sort of a system
of moral injunction, and incidentally recalls the pseudo-mystic
phase through which Luther had passed not so long before.
Here we get just a glimpse of his theory of human unfreedom and
of God's sole action, so far as this was in place in a work intended
for the " unschooled laity."6

In man, because he is " depraved by sin, all works, all words,
all thoughts, in a word his whole life, is wicked and ungodly. If
God is to work and live in him all these vices and this wickedness
must be stamped out." This he calls " the keeping of the day of
rest, when our works cease and God alone acts within us." We
must, indeed, " resist our flesh and our sins," yet " our lusts are
so many and so diverse, and also at times under the inspiration
of the Wicked One so clever, so subtle and so plausible that no man
can of his own keep himself in the right way ; he must let his
hands and feet go, commend himself to the Divine guidance,
trusting nothing to his reason. . . . For there is nothing more
dangerous in us than our reason and our will. And this is the
highest and the first work of God in us, and the best thing we can
do, for us to refrain from work, to keep the reason and the will
idle, to rest and commend ourselves to God in all things, par
ticularly when they are running smoothly and well." ;' The

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 291.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 209 ; Erl. ed., 162, p. 131.

3 Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 288.

4 " Werke," ib., p. 214=138.

5 Much the same in the Exposition of the Ten Commandments
(1528), " Werke," Weim. ed., 16, p. 485 ; Erl. ed., 36, p. 100.

6 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 203 ; Erl. ed., 162, p. 122.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 87

spiritual Sabbath is to leave God alone to work in us and not to
do anything ourselves with any of our powers."1 He harks back
here to that idea of self -surrender to the sole action of God, under
the spell of which he had formerly stood : " The works of our
flesh must be put to rest and die, so that in all things we may
keep the ghostly Sabbath, leaving our works alone and letting
God work in us. ... Then man no longer guides himself, his lust
is stilled and his sadness too ; God Himself is now his leader ;
nothing remains but godly desires, joy and peace together with
all other works and virtues."2

Though, according to the peculiar mysticism which speaks to
the " unschooled laity " out of these pages, all works and virtues
spring up of themselves during the Sabbath rest of the soul, still
Luther finds it advisable to introduce a chapter on the mortifica
tion of the flesh by fasting.

Fasting is to be made use of for the salvation of our own soul,
so far but no further, as or than each one judges it necessary
for the repression of the " wantonness of the flesh " and for the
"putting to death of our lust."3 We are not to "regard the
work in itself." Of corporal penance and mortification, and
fasting in particular, he will have it, that they are to be used
exclusively to " quench the evil " within us, but not on account of
any law of Pope or Church. Luther dismisses in silence the other
motives for penance recommended by the Church of yore, in the
first place satisfaction for sins committed and the desire to obtain
graces by reinforcing our prayers by self-imposed sacrifices.4

He fancies that a few words will suffice to guard against any
abuse of the new ascetical doctrine : " People must beware lest
this freedom degenerate into carelessness and indolence . . . into
which some indeed tumble and then say that there is no need
or call that we should fast or practise mortification."5

When, in the 3rd Commandment, he comes to speak of the
practice of prayer one would naturally have expected him to give
some advice and directions concerning its different forms, viz.
the prayer of praise, thanksgiving, petition or penitence. All he
seems to know is, however, the prayer of petition, in the case of
temporal trials and needs, and amidst spiritual difficulties.6

Throughout the writing Luther is dominated by the idea that
faith in Christ the Redeemer, and in personal salvation, must at
all costs be increased. At the same time he is no less certain that
the Papists neither prayed aright, nor were able to perform any
good works because they had no faith.

His exhortations to a devout life (some of them fine
enough in themselves, for instance, what he says on the

1 Ib., pp. 243-245=177-179.

2 Ib., p. 247 f. = 182 f. Cp. the similar statements in the Exposition
of the Ten Commandments (1528), pp. 480 f., 484 f. = 93 f., 96 f.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, p. 245 f. ; Erl. ed., 162, p. 180.

4 Cp. ib., p. 246 = 181. 5 P. 247 = 182.

6 Elsewhere, however, he treats of the other forms of prayer.

88 LUTHER THE REFORMER

trusting prayer of the sinner, on the prayers of the congrega
tion which cry aloud to heaven and on patience under
bitter sufferings), are, as a rule, intermingled to such an
extent with polemical matter, that, instead of a school of
the spiritual life, we seem rather to have before us the
turmoil of the battlefield.1 To understand this we must
bear in mind that he wrote the book amidst the excitement
into which he was thrown by the launching of the ban.

In the somewhat earlier writing on the Magnificat, which
might equally well have served as a medium for the en
forcing of virtue and which in some parts Luther did so use, 2
we also find the same unbridled spirit of hatred and abuse.
Nor is it lacking even in his later works of edification. The
most peaceable ethical excursus Luther contrives to dis
figure by his bitterness, his calumnies and, not seldom, by
his venom.

In the Sermon on Good Works as soon as he comes to
speak of prayer he has a cut at the formalism of the prayer
beloved of the Papists ;3 he then proceeds to abuse the
churches and convents for their mode of life, their chanting
and babbling, all performed in " obstinate unbelief," etc.
At least one-half of his instruction on fasting consists in
mockery of the fasting as practised by the Papists. His
anger, however, reaches its climax in the 4th Command
ment, where he completely forgets his subject, and, losing
all mastery over himself, wildly storms against the spiritual
authorities and their disorders.4 The only allusion to any
thing that by any stretch of imagination would be termed
a work, is the following :5 The rascally behaviour of the
Church's officers and episcopal or clerical functionaries
" ought to be repressed by the secular sword because no
other means is available." "The best thing, and the only
remaining remedy, would be, that the King, Princes, nobles,
townships and congregations should take the law into
their hands, so that the bishops and clergy might have good
cause to fear and therefore to obey." For everything must
make room for the Word of God.

" Neither Rome, nor heaven, nor earth " may decree
anything contrary to the first three Commandments.

1 Cp. p. 237-168 f., 238 f. = 170 f., 247 f. = 182 f.

2 See vol. iv., p. 501 f. 3 P. 232 = 162.
4 P. 262 = 202. 5 P. 258 = 197.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 89

In dealing with these first three Commandments the
booklet releases the reader at one stroke from all the Church's
laws hitherto observed. " Hence I allow each man to choose
the day, the food and the amount of his fasting."1 " Where
the spirit of Christ is, there all is free, for faith does not
allow itself to be tied down to any work."2

" The Christian who lives by faith has no need of any
teacher's good works."3 Here we can see the chief reason
why Luther's instructions on virtue and the spiritual life
are so meagre.

A Lutheran Theologian on the Lack of any Teaching
Concerning " Emancipation from the World'''1

Even from Protestant theologians we hear the admission
that Luther's Reformation failed to make sufficient allow
ance for the doctrine of piety ; he neglected, so they urge,
the question of man's " emancipation from the world," so
that, even to the present day, Protestantism, and traditional
Lutheran theology in particular, lacks any definite rule of
piety. According to these critics, ever since Luther's day
practical and adequate instructions had been wanting with
regard to what, subsequent to the reconciliation with the
Father brought about by Justification, still remains "to be
done in the Father's house " ; nor are we told how the life
in Christ is to be led, of which nevertheless the Apostle
Paul speaks so eloquently, though this is in reality the
"main question in Christianity" and concerns the "vital
interests of the Church."

The remarks just quoted occur in an article by the theologian
Julius Kaftan, Oberkonsistorialrat at Berlin, published in the
" Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche " in 1908 under the title,
" Why does the Evangelical Church know no doctrine of the
Redemption in the narrower sense, and how may this want be
remedied ? " We all the more gladly append some further
remarks by a theologian, who, as a rule, is by no means favourably
disposed to Catholicism.

According to Kaftan, Luther indeed supplied " all the elements "
for the upbuilding of a doctrine of " redemption from the world " ;
he gave " the stimulus " to the thought ; it is "not as though
we had no conception of it."

But he, and the Reformation as a whole, failed to furnish any
" actual, detailed doctrine " on this subject because their attack

1 P. 246 = 180. 2 P. 207 = 127. 3 Ib.

90 LUTHER THE REFORMER

was directed, and had to be directed, against the ideal of piety
as they found it in the Church's monastic life ; they destroyed
it, so the author opines, because it was only under this distorted
monkish shape that the " Christian idea of redemption from the
world was then met."1 The Reformation omitted to replace it
by a better system. It suffers from having fallen into the way
of giving " too great prominence to the doctrine of Justification,"
whereas the salvation " bestowed by Christ is not merely Justi
fication and forgiveness of sins," as the traditional Lutheran
theology seems on the surface to assume even to-day, but rather
the " everlasting possession " to be reached by a Christ-like life ;
Justification is but the road to this possession. Because people
failed to keep this in view the doctrine of the real " work of sal
vation " has from the beginning been made far too little of.

A further reason which explains the neglect is, according to
Kaftan, the following : In Catholicism it is the Church which acts
as the guide to piety and supplies all the spiritual aids required ;
she acts as intermediary between Cod and the faithful. But
" the Evangelical teaching rejected the Church (in this connec
tion) as a supernatural agency for the dispensation of the means
of salvation. In her place it set the action of the Spirit working
by means of the Word of God." Since this same teaching stops
short at the Incarnation and Satisfaction of Christ, it has " no
room for any doctrine of redemption (from the world) as a work
of God."2 Pietism, with all its irregularities, was merely an out
come of this deficiency ; but even the Pietists never succeeded
in formulating such a doctrine of redemption.

It is to the credit of the author that he feels this want deeply
and points out the way in which theology can remedy it.3 He
would fain see introduced a system of plain directions, though
framed on lines different from those of the " ostensibly final
doctrinal teaching " of the Formula of Concord,4 i.e. instructions
to the devout Christian how to manifest in his life in the world
the death and resurrection of Christ which St. Paul experienced
in himself. Much too much emphasis had been laid in Protes
tantism on Luther's friendliness to the world and the joy of
living, which he was the first to teach Christians in opposition
to the doctrine of the Middle Ages ; yet the other idea, of redemp
tion from the world, must nevertheless retain a lasting signifi
cance in Christianity. Although, before Luther's day, the Church
had erroneously striven to attain to the latter solely in the
monastic life, yet there is no doubt " that the most delicate
blossoms of pre-Reformation piety sprang from this soil, and that
the best forces in the Church owed their origin to this source."
Is it merely fortuitous, continues the author, " that the ' Imitation

1 P. 236. 2 P. 271.

3 Kaftan speaks of a theological want which he had attempted to
supply in his own " Dogmatik." In reality, however, he has practice
equally in view, and, from his statements we may infer that the want
which had been apparent from Luther's day was more than a mere
defect in the theory. * P. 281.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 91

of Christ,' by Thomas a Kempis, should be so widely read
throughout Christendom, even by Evangelicals ? Are there not
many Evangelical Christians who could witness that this book
has been a great help to them in a crisis of their inner life ? But
whoever knows it knows what the idea of redemption from the
world there signifies." All this leads our author to the conclusion :
" The history of Christianity and of the Church undoubtedly
proves that here [in the case of the defect in the Lutheran
theology he is instancing] it is really a question of a motive power
and central thought of our religion."1 He points out to the world
of our day, " that growing civilisation culminates in disgust
with the world and with civilisation." " Then," he continues,
" the soul again cries for God, for the God Who is above all the
world and in Whom alone the heart finds rest. As it ever was,
so is it still to-day."2

It is a satisfaction to hear this call which must rejoice the
heart of every believer. The same, however, had been heard
throughout the ancient Church and had met with a happy
response. Not in the " Imitation " only, but in a hundred
other writings of Catholics, mystic and ascetic, could our
author have found the ideals of Christian perfection and of
the rest in God which comes from inward severance from the
world, all expressed with the utmost clearness and the
warmest feeling. Nor was Christian perfection imprisoned
within the walls of the monasteries ; it also nourished in the
breezy atmosphere of the world. The Church taught the
universality of this ideal of perfect love of God, of the
imitation of Christ and of detachment from the world, and
she recommended it indiscriminately to all classes, inviting
people to practise it under all conditions of life and ex
pending liberally in all directions her supernatural powers
in order to attain her aim. Among the best of those whose
writings inaugurated a school of piety may be classed
St. Bernard and Gerson, in whom Luther had found light
and edification when still a zealous monk. With him,
however, the case was very different. Of the works he
bequeathed to posterity the Protestant theologian referred
to above, says regretfully : They contain neither a " doc
trine " nor a definite " scheme of instruction " on " that
side of life which faces God." " No clear, conclusive
thoughts on this all-important matter are to be found."

On the other hand it must be added that there is no want
of " clear, conclusive thoughts " to a quite opposite effect ;

1 P. 276. 2 P. 278.

92 LUTHER THE REFORMER

not merely on enjoyment of the world, but on a kind of
sovereignty over it which is scarcely consistent with the
effort after self -betterment.

The Means of Self -Reform and their Reverse Side

Self-denial as the most effective means of self-education
in the good, and self-conquest in outward and inward things,
receive comparatively small attention from Luther ; rather
he is set on delivering people from the " anxiety-breeding,"
traditional prejudice in favour of spiritual renunciation,
obedience to the Church and retrenchment in view of the
evil. This deliverance, thanks to its alluring and attractive
character, was welcomed, in spite of Luther's repeated
warnings against any excess of the spirit of the world. His
abandonment of the path of perfection so strongly recom
mended by Christ and his depreciation of " peculiar " works
and " singular " practices were more readily understood
and also more engaging than his words in favour of real
works of faith. He set up his own inward experiences of the
difficulty and, as he thought, utter futility of the conflict
with self, together with his hostility to all spiritual efforts
exceeding the common bounds, as the standard for others,
and, in fact, even for the Church ; in the Catholic past, on
the other hand, the faithful had been taught to recognise
the standard of the Church, their teacher and guide, as the
rule by which to judge of their own experiences.

Here to prove what we have said, would necessitate the
repetition of what has already been given elsewhere.

Luther's writings, particularly his letters, also contain
certain instructions, which, fortunately, have not become
the common property of Protestants, but which everybody
must feel to be absolutely opposed to anything like self-
betterment. We need only call to mind his teaching, that
temptations to despondency and despair are best withstood
by committing some sin in defiance of the devil, or by
diverting the mind to sensual and carnal distractions.1 The
words : " What matters it if we commit a fresh sin ? "2

1 Cp. the letter to Hier. Weller, July (?), 1530, " Brief wechsel," 8,
p. 159; Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichnungen," pp. 11, 89, etc.; Cordatus,
" Tagebuch," p. 450 ; " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 299. See our
vol. iii., p. 175 ff.

2 See vol. ii., p. 339 ; iii., p. 180 ff. ; above, p. 9 ff.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 93

since through faith we have forgiveness, and the other
similar utterance, " Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe
more boldly still," are characteristic of him, though he
would have been unwilling to see them pressed or taken too
literally. By these and other statements he did, however,
seriously endanger the ethical character of sin ; in reality he
diminished the abhorrence for sin, though no doubt he did
not fully perceive the consequences of his act.1

To the man who had become sensible of the ensnaring
influence of the world and of its evil effects upon himself, or
who on account of his mental build felt himself endangered
by it, Catholic moralists advised retirement, recollection,
self-examination and solitude. Luther was certainly not
furthering the cause of perfection when he repeatedly
insisted, with an emphasis that is barely credible, that
solitude must be avoided as the deadly foe of the true life
of the soul, and that what should be sought was rather
company and distraction. Solitude was a temptation to sin.
" I too find," so he says, " that I never fall into sin more
frequently than when I am alone. . . . Quietude calls forth
the worst of thoughts. Whatever our trouble be, it then
becomes much more dangerous," etc.2 Of course, in the
case of persons of gloomy disposition Luther was quite right
in recommending company, but it was just in doing so that
he exceeded the bounds in his praise of sensual distractions ;3
of his own example, too, he makes far too much. On the
other hand, all the great men in the Church had sought to
find the guiding light of self-knowledge in solitude ; this
they regarded as a school for the subjugation of unruly
emotions.

Not only were self-control and self-restraint something
strange to Luther,4 but he often went so far as to adduce
curious theoretical reasonings of his own to prove that they
could have no place in his public life and controversies, and
why he and his helpers were compelled to give the reins to
anger, hatred and abuse. Thus the work of self -improve
ment was renounced in yet another essential point.

1 Above, vol. iii., p. 185 f.

2 " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 155 ff.

3 Cp. our vol. iii., p. 176 f.
* Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

94 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Then again with regard to prayer. His exhortations
thereto are numerous enough and he himself prayed fre
quently. But it is not necessary to be an ascetic to see that
several things are wanting in his admonitions to prayer.
The first is the salt of contrition and compunction. He was
less alive to the wholesome underlying feeling of melancholy
that characterises the soul which prays to God in the
consciousness of having abused its free-will, than he was to
the suggestions of self-confidence and assurance of salvation.
The second thing wanting is the humility which should
permeate prayer even when exalted to the highest limits of
trusting confidence. If man, as Luther taught, is incapable
of any work, then of course there can be no sense of shame
at not having done more to please God and to merit greater
grace from Him. Moreover, Luther indirectly encouraged
people to pray in the bold consciousness of being justified
and to look for the keeping of the law as a natural conse
quence of such " faith." Lastly, and this sums up every
thing, we miss the spirit of love in his often so strongly
worded and eloquent exhortations to prayer ; the spirit
which should have led him to resignation to God's designs,
and to commit his life's work to the Will of God with a
calm indifference as to its eventual success.1 Hardly ever
do we find any trace of that zeal for souls which embraces
the whole of God's broad kingdom even to the heathen, in
short, the whole of the Church's sphere.2 On the other
hand, however, he expressly exhorts his followers to
increase the ardour of their prayers, after his own example,
by interspersing them with curses on all whose views were
different.3

In place of the pleasing variety of the old exercises of
prayer — from the Office recited by the clergy with its daily
commemoration of the Saints down to the multifarious
devotions of the people, to say nothing of the great Sacrifice
of the Altar, the very heart's pulse of the Church — he
recommends as a rule only the Our Father, the Creed and
the Psalms — prayers indeed rich beyond all others and
which will ever hold the first place among Christian devo
tions. But had they not been brought closer to the heart

1 Cp. on Luther's prayer, vol. iii., p. 206 f. ; iv., p. 274 ff.

2 Vol. iii., p. 213 f.

3 Vol. iii., p. 207 f. ; iv., p. 311.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 95

formerly in the inner and outer life of prayer dealt with
in the writings of the Catholic masters of the spiritual life,
and exemplified in the churches and monasteries, and even
in private houses and the very streets ? But behind all this
rich display Luther saw lurking the demon of " singular
works." The monk absorbed in contemplation was, in
Luther's eyes, an unhappy wretch sitting " in filth " up to
his neck. Thus he restricts himself to recommending the
old short formulas of prayer. In accordance with his
doctrine that faith alone avails, he desires that sin, and the
intention of sinning, should be withstood by the use of the
Our Father : " That you diligently learn to say the Our
Father, the Creed and the Ten Commandments."1 " Grant,
O God (thus must you pray), that Thy Name be hallowed by
me, Thy Kingdom come to me, and Thy Will be done in me ";
in this wise they would come to scorn " devil, death and
hell."2 He indeed kept in touch with the people by means
of the olden prayers, but, even into them, he knew how to
introduce his own new views ; the Kingdom of God, which to
him is forgiveness of sins,3 " must come to us by faith," and
the chief article of the whole Creed with which to defy
" death, devil and hell " was the " remissio peccatorum."
These remarks must not, however, be understood as detract
ing from the value of his fine, practical, and often sympa
thetic expositions of the Our Father, whether in his special
work on it in 1518 or in the Larger Catechism.4

Of the numerous " man-made laws " which he banished
at one stroke by denying the Church's authority there is no
need to speak here. Without a doubt the overturning of all
these barriers erected against human lusts and wilfulness
was scarcely conducive to the progress of the individual.

Nor does the absence of any higher standard of life in his
own case5 serve to recommend his system of ethics. Seeing
that, as has been already pointed out, 6 he himself is disposed
to admit his failings, the apparent confidence with which,

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 202, 2, p. 553. Cp. pp. 554, 558.

2 /&., p. 552.

3 W. Walther, " Die Sittlichkeit nach Luther," p. 63.

4 The Explanation of the Our Father in 1518, " Werke," Weim. ed.,
2, p. 74 ff ; 9, p. 122 ff ; Erl. ed., 21, p. 156 ff ; 45, p. 203 ff. Note
worthy additions to it were made by Luther in 1519, ib., 6, pp. 8 ff.,
20 ff.-45, p. 208 ff. Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, pp. 116 f., 291 f.

6 Above, vol. iii., pp. 169 f., 211 f. 6 Vol. iii., p. 200 ff.

96 LUTHER THE REFORMER

in order to exalt his reform of ethics, he appeals to the
biblical verity, that the truth of a doctrine is proved by its
moral fruits, is all the more surprising.

Of this confidence we have a remarkable example in a
sermon devoted to the explanation of the 1st Epistle of
St. John. At the same time the exceptional boldness of his
language and the resolute testimony he bears in his own
favour constitute striking proof of how the very firmness of
his attitude impressed his followers and exercised over many
a seductive spell. The weakness of the Reformer's ethics
seems all at once to vanish before his mighty eloquence.

The discourse in question, where at the same time he vindicates
his own conduct, belongs to 1532. About that time he preached
frequently at Wittenberg on St. John's sublime words concerning
the love of God and our neighbour (1 Jo. iv. 16-21). His object
was to cleanse and better the morals of Wittenberg, the low
standard of which he deplores, that the results of justification by
faith might shine forth more brightly. At that very time he was
treating with the Elector and the Saxon Estates in view of a new
visitation of all the parishes to be held the next year, which might
promote the good of morality. The sermons were duly reported
by his pupil Cruciger, whose notes were published at Wittenberg
in 1533 under the general title of " A Sermon on Love."1

Dealing therein with ethical practice he starts by proclaiming
that, according to the " pious Apostle " whose doctrines he was
expounding, everything depends on Christians proving by their
fruits whether they really "walk in love." Of many, however,
who not only declared themselves well acquainted with the
principles of faith and ethics but even professed to be qualified
to teach them, it was true that, "if we applied and manifested in
our lives their ethics after their example, then we should be but
poorly off."2 Such men must, nevertheless, be tested by their
works. Nor does he exempt himself from this duty of putting
ethics to a practical test.

Nowhere else does he insist more boldly than in these sermons
on proof by actual deeds, even in his own case. According
to the words of John, so he says, a life of love would give
them "confidence in the Day of Judgment" (iv. 17). Confi
dence, nay, a spirit of holy defiance, even in the presence of death
and judgment, must fill the hearts of all who acted aright, owing
to the very testimony of their fellow-men to the blamelessness
of their lives. " We must be able to boast [with Christ, ' the
reconciliation for our sins '] not before God alone but before God
and all Christendom, and against the whole world, that no one

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 36, pp. 416-477 ; Erl. ed., 182, pp. 304-361.

2 76., pp. 420-308 f.

SELF-IMPROVEMENT 97

can truthfully condemn or even accuse us." " We must be able
to assure ourselves that we have lived in such a way that no one
can take scandal at us " ; we must have this testimony, " that
we have walked on earth in simplicity and godly piety, and that
no one can charge us with having been given to ' trickery.' ' In
this wise had Paul countered false doctrines by boasting, just as
Moses and Samuel had already done under the Old Covenant.1

Coming to his own person the speaker thinks he can honestly
say the same of himself, though, like the rest, he too must confess
to being still in need of the article of the forgiveness of sins.
There were false teachers who could not appeal so confidently to
the morality of their lives, " proud, puffed-up spirits who lay
claim to a great and wonderful holiness, who want to reform the
whole world and to do something singular in order that all may
say that they alone are true Christians. This sort of thing lasts
indeed for a while, during which they parade and strut, but,
when the hour of death comes, that is the end of all such idle
nonsense."2 He himself, with the faithful teachers and good
Christians, is in a very different case : " If I must boast of how
I have acted in my position towards everyone then I will say :
I witness before you and all the world, and know that God too
witnesses on my behalf together with all His angels, that I have
not falsified God's Word, His Baptism or the Sacrament but have
preached and acted faithfully as much as was in me, and suffered
all ill solely for God's and His Word's sake. Thus must all the
Saints boast."3

He lays the greatest stress on the unanimous testimony which
the preacher must receive from his fellow-men and from posterity.
He must be able to say, " you shall be my witnesses," he " must
be able to call upon all men to bear him witness " ; they must
bear us witness on the Last Day that we have lived aright and
shown by our deeds that we were Christians. If this is the case,
if they can point to their practice of good works, then the preach
ing of good works can be insisted on with all the emphasis
required.4 It is natural, however, that towards the end Luther
lays greater stress on his teaching than on his works.

On his preaching of the value of good works he solemnly assures
us : " We can testify before the whole world that we have
preached much more grandly and forcefully on good works than
even those who calumniate us."5

Self-Reform and Hatred of the Foe

In speaking of Luther, his staunch friends are wont to
boast of his lifelong struggle against the fetters of the Papacy
and of the overwhelming power of his assault on the olden
Church ; this, so they imply, redounded to his glory and
showed his moral superiority.

1 P. 448 f. = 335 f. 2 P. 444 = 331. 3 P. 452 = 339.

4 P. 449 ff. = 336 ff. 6 P. 447 = 334.

v.— H

98 LUTHER THE REFORMER

In what follows we shall therefore consider some of the
main ethical features of this struggle of Luther's and of the
attitude he adopted in his conflict with Popery. His very
defence of himself and of the moral effects of his preaching,
which we have just heard him pronounce subsequent to the
Diet of Augsburg, invites us to consider in the light of
ethics his public line of action, as traced in his writings of
that period. These years represent a turning-point in his
life, and here, if anywhere, we should be able to detect his
higher moral standard and the power of his new principles
to effect a change first of all in himself. In the sermon of
1532 (above, p. 96) he had said : The new Gospel which
he had " preached rightly and faithfully " made those who
accepted it "to walk in simplicity and godly piety " accord
ing to the law of love, and to stand forth " blameless before
all the world." Could he truthfully, he, the champion of
this Gospel, really lay any claim to these qualities as here
he seems to do, at least indirectly ?

His controversial tracts dating from that time display
anything but " simplicity and godly piety." His hate was
without bounds, and his fury blazed forth in thunderbolts
which slew all who dared to attempt to bridge the chasm
between him and the Catholic Church. Reproaching voices,
about him and within him, seemed to him to come from so
many devils. The Coburg, where he stayed, was assuredly
" full of devils," so he wrote.1 There, in spite of his previous
attempts to jest and be cheerful,2 and notwithstanding the
violent and distracting labours in which he was engaged,
the devil had actually established an " embassy," troubling
him with many anxieties and temptations.3

The devil he withstood by paroxysms of that hate and rage
which he had always in store for his enemies. " The Castle
may be crammed with devils, yet Christ reigneth there in

1 To Melanchthon from the Coburg, July 31, 1530, " Brief wechsel,"
8, p. 157 : " ex arce dcemonibus plena."

2 To the same, April 23, 1530, ib., 7, p. 308 : " Hcec satis pro ioco,
sed serio et necessario ioco, qui mihi irruentes cogitationes repelleret, si
tamen repellet."

3 To the same, May 12, 1530, ib., 7, p. 333 : " Eo die, quo literce tuce
e Norimberga venerunt, Tiabuit satan legationem suam apud me," etc.
See vol. ii., p. 390. Cp. to the same, June, 1530 (" Brief wechsel," 8,
p. 43), where he calls the devil his torturer, and to the same, June 30,
1530, ib., p. 51, where he speaks of his " private struggles with the
devil."

HATE AND RAGE 99

the midst of His foes ! "* He includes in the same categpry
the Papists, and the Turks who then were threatening
Europe : Both are " monsters," both have been " let loose
by the fury of the devil," both represent a common " woe
doomed to overwhelm the world in these last days of
Christendom."2 These "stout jackasses" (of the Diet of
Augsburg), so he cried from the ramparts of his stronghold,
" want to meddle in the business of the Church. Let them
try ! "3 " The very frenzy and madness of our foes of itself
alone proves that we are in the right."4 4 Their blasphemy,
their murders, their contempt of the Gospel, and other
enormities against it, increase day by day and must bring
the Turk into the field against us."5 "I am a preacher
of Christ," so he assures us, "and Christ is the truth. "-
But is hatred a mark of a disciple of Christ, or of a higher
mission for the reformation of doctrine and worship ?

Elsewhere Luther himself describes hate as a " true image
of the devil ; in fact, it is neither human nor diabolical but
the devil himself whose whole being is nothing but an ever
lasting burning," etc. " The devil is always acting contrary
to love." " Such is his way ; God works nothing but
benefits and deeds of charity, while he on the contrary
performs nothing but works of hate."6 On other occasions
in his sermons he speaks in familiar and at the same time
inspiring words of the beauty of Christian love. " Love is
a great and rich treasure, worth many hundred thousand
gulden, or a great kingdom. Who is there who would not
esteem it highly and pursue it to the limit of his power,
nay, pour out sweat and blood for it if he only hoped or
knew how to obtain it ! ... What is sun, moon, heavens or
all creation, all the angels, all the saints compared with it ?
Love is nothing but the one, unspeakable, eternal good and
the highest treasure, which is God Himself."7

1 To the same, July 31, 1530, ib., 8, p. 157.

2 Cp. to the same, April 23, 1530, ib., 7, p. 303.

3 To the same, May 12, 1530, ib., p. 333.

4 To the same, May 15, 1530, ib., p. 335.

5 To the same, Aug. 15, 1530, ib., 8, p. 190 : " Christus vivit et
regnat. Fiant sane dcemones, si ita volunt, monachi vel nonnce quoque.
Nee forma melior eos decet, quam qua sese tnundo hactenus vendiderunt
adorandos" The "monks or nuns " is an allusion to the appearance of
the "spectre-monks" at Spires just before the Diet of Augsburg; see
vol. ii., p. 389 f.

• " Werke," Weim. ed., 36, p. 424 ; Erl. ed., 182, p. 313 f.

7 Ib., p. 423 = 312. — The so-called " Sermon on Love " (above,

100 LUTHER THE REFORMER

i

But his " Vermanug an die geistlichen versamlet auff dem
Reichstag zu Augsburg " (which he wrote from the Coburg)
was the fruit, not of love, but of the most glowing hate.1
In a private letter he calls it quite rightly, not an " exhorta
tion " (Vermanug), but "an invective" against the clergy,2
and, in another letter, admits the " violent spirit " in which
he had written it ; when composing it the abusive thoughts
had rushed in on him like an " uninvited band of moss
troopers."3 But, that he drove them back as he declares he
did, is not discernible from the work in question.

In the booklet under discussion he several times uses what
would seem to be words of peace, and, in one passage, even
sketches a scheme for reunion ; but, as a Protestant critic of the
latter says, not altogether incorrectly, the "idea was of its very
nature impossible of execution."4 Indeed, we may say that
Luther himself could see well enough that the idea was a mere
deception ; the best motto for the writing would be : Enmity
and hatred until death !

The Catholic members of the Diet are there represented as
"obstinate and stiff-necked," and as "bloodhounds raging
wantonly " ; they had hitherto, but all to no purpose, " tried
fraud and trickery, force and anger, murder and penalties." To
the bishops he cries : " May the devil who drives them dog
their footsteps, and all our misfortunes fall on their head ! "

p. 96 f.) seeks to demonstrate in the above words the value of love of
our neighbour, and, that this necessarily resulted from true faith. It
abounds in beautiful sayings concerning the advantage of this virtue.
Cruciger had his reasons for publishing it, one being, as he says in the
dedication, to stop the mouths of those who never cease to cry out
against our people as though we neither taught nor practised any
thing concerning love and good works." (Erl. ed., 182, p. 305.) Kostlin-
Kawerau remarks (2, p. 273) : " The fundamental evil was that the new
Church included amongst its members so many who were indifferent
to such preaching ; they had joined it not merely without any real
interior conversion, but without any spiritual awakening or sympathy,
purely by reason of outward circumstances." It must be added that
the Sermon, though intended as a remedy, suffers from the defect of
being permeated through and through with a spirit of bitter hate
against the Church Catholic ; in the very first pages we find the speaker
complaining, that the devil, " who cannot bear the Word," " attacks
us ... in order to murder us by means of his tyrants " ; " we are,
however, forced to have the devil for our guest," who molests us
" with his crew." Weim. ed., 36, p. 417 f. ; Erl. ed., 182, p. 306 f.

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 356 ff.

2 To Melanchthon, May 12, 1530, " Briefwechsel," 7, p. 332.

3 To the same, April 29, 1530, ib., p. 313 : " Oratio mea ad clerum
procedit ; crescit inter manus et materia et impetus, ut plurimos Lands-
knechtos prorsus vi repellere cogar, qui insalutati non cessant obstrepere."
Cp. Kolde, " Luther," 2, p. 330.

4 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199.

HATE AND RAGE 101

He puts them on a level with "procurers and whoremongers,"
and trounces them as " the biggest robbers of benefices, bawds
and procurers to be found in all the world."1 — There had been
many cases of infringement of the law of celibacy among both
lower and higher clergy previous to Luther's advent, while the
Wittenberg spirit of freedom set free in the German lands helped
considerably to increase the evil amongst the ranks of the
Catholic clergy ; but to what unheard-of exaggerations, all
steeped in hate, did not Luther have recourse the better to
inflame the people and to defend the illicit marriages of those of
the clergy who now were the preachers of the new religion ? He
was about "to sweep out of the house the harlots and abducted
spouses " of the bishops, and not merely to show up the bishops
as real " lechers and brothel-keepers " (a favourite expression of
his), but to drag them still deeper in the mire. It was his unclean
fancy, which delighted to collect the worst to be found in corrupt
localities abroad, that led him to say : " And, moreover, we shall
do clean away with your Roman Sodom, your Italian weddings,
your Venetian and Turkish brides, and your Florentine bride
grooms ! "2

The pious founders of the bishoprics and monasteries, he cries,
" never intended to found bawdy-houses or Roman robber-
churches," nor yet to endow with their money " strumpets and
rascals, or Roman thieves and robbers." The bishops, however,
are set on " hiding, concealing and burying in silence the whole
pot-broth of their abominations and corrupt, unepiscopal abuses,
shame, vice and noxious perversion of Christendom, and on seeing
them lauded and praised," whereas it is high time that they " spat
upon their very selves " ; their auxiliary bishops " smear the
unschooled donkeys with chrism " (ordain priests) and these in
turn seek " to rise to power " ; yet revolt against them and
against all authority is brewing in the distance ; if the bloody
deeds of Miinzer's time were repeated, then, he, Luther, would not
be to blame ; " men's minds are prepared and greatly embittered
and, that, not without due cause " ; if you "go to bits " then
" your blood be upon your own head ! " Meanwhile it is too bad
that the bishops "should go about in mitres and great pomp," as
though we were " old fools " ; but still worse is it that they
should make of all this pomp " articles of faith and a matter of
conscience, so that people must commit sin if they refuse to
worship such child's play ; surely this is the devil's own work."
Of such hateful misrepresentations, put forward quite seriously,
a dozen other instances might be cited from this writing. " But
that we must look upon such child's play as articles of faith,
and befool ourselves with bishops' mitres, from that we cannot
get away, no matter how much we may storm or jeer."3

The writing culminates in the following outburst : "In
short we and you alike know that you are living with-

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 391 ff.

2 Ib., p. 395 f. 3 Ib., p. 406.

102 LUTHER THE REFORMER

out God's Word, but that, on our side, we have God's
Word."

" If I live I shall be your bane ; if I die I shall be your
death ! For God Himself has driven me to attack you !
I must, as Hosea says, be to you as a bear and a lion in the
way of Assur. You shall have no peace from me until you
amend or rush to your own destruction."1

At a later date, of the saying " If I live," etc., Luther
made the Latin couplet : " Pestis eram vivus moriens ero
mors tua papa." In life, O Pope, I was thy plague, in dying
I shall be thy death. He first produced this verse at
Spalatin's home at Altenburg on his return journey from
the Coburg ; afterwards he frequently repeated it, for
instance, at Schmalkalden in 1537, when he declared, that
he would bequeath his hatred of the Papacy as an heirloom
to his disciples.2

As early as 1522 he had also made use of the Bible passage
concerning the lion and the bear in his " Wyder den falsch
genantten geystlichen Standt " with the like assurance of the
Divine character of his undertaking, and in a form which shows
how obsessed he was by the spirit of hate : He was sure of
his doctrine and by it would judge even the angels ; without it
no one could be saved, for it was God's and not his, for which
reason his sentence too was God's and not his : " Let this be my
conclusion. If I live you shall have no peace from me, if you
kill me, you shall have ten times less peace ; and I shall be to
you as Oseas says, xiii. 8, a bear in the path and a lion in the
road. However you may treat me you shall not have your will,
until your brazen front and iron neck are broken either unwillingly
or by grace. Unless you amend, as I would gladly wish, then we
may persist, you in your anger and hostility and I in paying
no heed."3

On another occasion he tells us how he would gladly have
left Wittenberg with Melanchthon and the others who were
going by way of Nuremberg to the Diet of Augsburg, but
a friend had said to him : " Hold your tongue ! Your
tongue is an evil one ! "4

1 Ib., p. 396 f. 2 Cp. our vol. iii., p. 435.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 107 ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 144.

4 To Eobanus Hessus, April 23, 1530, " Brief wechsel," 7, p. 301.
Cp. n. 2 in Enders, who suggests the above translation of " tu habes
malam vocem." We read in Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 199 : " We must
admit, that, judging by the tone of this tract [the ' Vermanug '] Luther's
' voice ' would have been out of place at Augsburg, as he admits in
his letter to Eobanus Hessus."

SENSE OF GREATNESS 103

After the publication of the " Vermanug an die Geist-
lichen," or possibly even before, Melanchthon seems to have
written to him, re-echoing the observations of startled and
anxious friends, and saying that the writing had .been
" variously " appreciated, in itself a significant remark ;
Luther himself at that time certainly dreaded the censure
of his adherents. Still, he insists as defiantly as ever on his
" invective " : " Let not your heart be troubled," he
admonishes Melanchthon, " My God is a God of fools, Who
is wont to laugh at the wise. Whence I trouble myself about
them not the least bit."1 On the contrary, he even came
near regarding his writing as a special work of God.

As we have already pointed out, the defiant and violent
steps he took, only too often became in his eyes special
works of God. His notorious, boundless sense of his own
greatness, to which this gave rise, is the first of the phenomena
which accompanied his hate ; these it will now be our duty
briefly to examine in order better to appreciate the real
strength of his ethical principles in his own case.

Companion- Phenomena of his Hate

As a matter of fact Luther's sense of his superiority was
so great that the opponents he attacked had to listen to
language such as no mortal had ever before dreamed of
making use of against the Church.

The Church is being reformed " in my age " in "a Divine
way, not after human ways." " Were we to fall, then
Christ would fall with us."2

Whenever he meets with contradiction, whenever he
hears even the hint of a reproach or accusation, he at once
ranges himself — as he does, for instance, in the " Vermanug "
— on the side of the persecuted " prophets and apostles,"
nay, he even likens himself to Christ.3 He stood alone,
without miracles, and devoid of holiness, as he himself
candidly informed Henry VIII. of England ; nevertheless
he pits himself against the heads of both Church and
Empire assembled at the Diet.

All he could appeal to was his degree of Doctor of
Theology : " Had I not been a Doctor, the devil would have

1 On June 5, 1530, " Briefwechsel," 8, p. 367.

2 See vol. iv., p. 338 f. 3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 364. j

104 LUTHER THE REFORMER

given me much trouble, for it is no small matter to attack
the whole Papacy and to charge it " (with error).1 In the
last instance, however, his self-confidence recalls him to the
proud consciousness of his entire certainty. " Thus our
cause stands firm, because we know how we believe and how
we live."2

With these words from his " Vermanug " he defies the
whole of the present and of the past, the Pope and all his
Councils.

He knows — and that suffices — that what he has and
proclaims is God's Word ; " and if you have God's Word
you may say : Now that I have the Word what need have
I to ask what the Councils say ? "3 " Among all the
Councils I have never found one where the Holy Spirit rules.
. . . There will never be no Council [sic], according to the
Holy Spirit, where the people have to agree. God allows this
because He Himself wills to be the Judge and suffers not men
to judge. He rice He commands every man to know what he
believes."4 Luther only, and those who follow him, know
what they believe ; he takes the place of all the councils,
Doctors of the Church, Popes and bishops, in short, of all
the ecclesiastical sources of theology.

" The end of the world may now come," he said, in 1540,
" for all that pertains to the knowledge of God has now been
supplied " (by me).5

With this contempt for the olden Church he combines a most
imperious exclusiveness in his treatment even of those who like
him were opposed to the Pope, whether they were individuals
or formed schools of thought. They must follow his lead, other
wise there awaits them the sentence he launched at the Zwing-
lians from the Coburg : " These Sacramentarians are not merely
liars but the very embodiment of lying, deceit and hypocrisy ;
this both Carlstadt and Zwingli prove by word and deed."
Their books, he says, contain pestilential stuff ; they refused to
retract even when confuted by him, but simply because they
stood in fear of their own following ; he would continue to put
them to shame by those words, which so angered them : " You
have a spirit different from ours." He could not look upon them
as brothers ; this was duly expressed in the article in which he
went so far as to promise them that love which was due even to

1 Cordatus, " Tagebuch," p. 363 f.

2 " Werke," ib., p. 361 ; cp. p. 396.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 24, p. 313 ; Erl. ed., 33,>p. 331. Sermons on
Genesis, 1527. 4 Ib., p. 312 f. = 330 f.

5 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 108. From the year 1540.

WANT OF CHARITY 105

enemies. On his own authority he curtly dubs them " heretics,"
and is resolved in this way to tread unharmed with Christ through
Satan's kingdom and all his lying artifices.1 Luther's aggra
vating exclusiveness went hand-in-hand with his overweening
self-confidence.

In consequence of this treatment the Swiss, through the agency
of Bullinger, Zwingli's successor, complained to Bucer, " Beware
of not believing Luther readily or of not yielding to him ! He
is a scorpion ; no matter how carefully he is handled he will
sting, even though to begin with he seems to caress your hand."2
To this Bucer, who had also ventured to differ from Luther,
wrote in his reply : " He has flung another scathing book at
us. ... He speaks, and means to speak, much more harshly
than heretofore." " He will not now endure even the smallest
contradiction, and I am sure that, were I to go any further, I
should cause such a tragedy that all the churches would once
more be convulsed."3 Another Protestant voice we hear ex
claiming with a fine irony : " Luther rages, thunders and lightens
as though he were a Jupiter and had all the bolts of heaven at
his command to launch against us. . . . Has he then become an
emperor of the Christian army on the model of the Pope, so as to
be able to issue every pronouncement that his brain suggests ? "4
" He confuses the two Natures in Christ and brings forward
foolish, nay godless, statements. If we may not condemn this,
then what, pray, may be condemned ? "5

His natural lack of charity, of which we shall have later
on to add many fresh and appalling examples to those
already enumerated, aggravated his hatred, his sense of
his own greatness and his exclusiveness. What malicious
hatred is there not apparent in his advice that Zwingli and
(Ecolampadius should be condemned, " even though this led
to violence being offered them."6 It is with reluctance that
one gazes on Luther's abuse of the splendid gifts of mind and
heart with which he had been endowed.

A recent Protestant biographer of Carlstadt's laments the
" frightful harshness of his (Luther's) polemics." " How deep
the traces left by his mode of controversy were, ought not to
be overlooked," so he writes. " From that time forward this
sort of thing took the place of any real discussion of differences
of opinion between members of the Lutheran camp, nor did
people even seem aware of how far they were thus drifting from
the kindliness and dignity of Christian modes of thought."7

1 To Jacob Probst, June 1, 1530, " Brief wechsel," 7, p. 353 f.

2 To Bucer, July 12, 1532, in " Anal. Lutherana," ed. Kolde, p. 203.

3 " Anal.," loc. cit. 4 Leo Judae, 1. c., 203.
5 Ib., p. 204. 6 See our vol. iv., p. 87.
7 H. Barge, " Carlstadt," see our vol. ii., p. 154.

106 LUTHER THE REFORMER

What is here said of the treatment of opponents within the camp
applies even more strongly to Luther's behaviour towards
Catholics.

The following episode of his habitual persecution of Albert,
Archbishop and Elector of Mayence, illustrates this very well.

On June 21, 1535, the Archbishop in accordance with the then
law and with the sentence duly pronounced by the judge, had
caused Hans von Schonitz, once his trusted steward, to be executed ;
the charge of which he had been proved guilty was embezzlement
on a gigantic scale. The details of the case, which was dealt with
rather hurriedly, have not yet been adequately cleared up, but
even Protestant researchers agree that Schonitz deserved to be
dealt with as a "public thief,"1 seeing that "in the pecuniary
transactions which he undertook for Albert he was not unmindful
of his own advantage " ;2 " there is no doubt that he was rightly
accused of all manner of peculation and cheating."3 Luther,
however, furiously entered the lists on behalf of the executed
man and against the detested Archbishop who, in spite of his
private faults, remained faithful to the Church and was a hin
drance to the spread of Lutheranism in Germany. Luther im
plicitly believed all that was told him, of Hans's innocence and
of Albert's supposed abominable motives, by Schonitz's brother
and his friend Ludwig Rabe — who himself was implicated in the
matter — and both of whom came to Wittenberg. " Both natur
ally related the case from their own point of view."4 Luther
sent two letters to the Cardinal, one more violent than the other. 5
The second would seem to have been intended for publication
and was sent to the press, though at present no copy of it can be
discovered. In it in words of frightful violence he lays at the
door of the Prince of the Church the blood of the man done to
death. The Archbishop was a " thorough-paced Epicurean
who does not believe that Abel lives in God and that his blood
still cries more loudly than Cain, his brother's murderer, fancies."
He, Luther, like another Elias, must call down woes " upon
Achab and Isabel." He had indeed heard of many evil deeds
done by Cardinals, " but I had not taken your Cardinalitial
Holiness for such an insolent, wicked dragon. . . . Your Elec
toral Highness may if he likes commit a nuisance in the Em
peror's Court of Justice, infringe the freedom of the city of Halle,
usurp the sword of Justice belonging to Saxony, and, over and
above this, look on the world and on all reason as rags fit only
for the closet " — such is a fair sample of the language — and,
moreover, treat everything in a Popish, Roman, Cardinalitial

1 F. Hiilsse, " Card. Albrecht und Hans Schenitz," " Magdeburger
Geschichtsblatter," 1889, p. 82; cp. Enders, " Brief wechsel Luthers,"
10, p. 182, who remarks of F. W. E. Roth's review in the " Hist.-pol.
BL," 118, 1896, p. 160 f. : " The author does not seem to be acquainted
with Hiilsse's work and therefore condemns Albert."

2 Enders, ib., p. 181. 3 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 419.

4 Enders, ib.

5 On July 31, 1535, and Jan.-Feb., 1536, " Werke," Erl. ed., 55,
pp. 98 and 125 (" Brief wechsel," 10, pp. 180 and 296).

HIS IRRITABILITY 107

way, but, please God, our Lord God will by our prayers one day
compel your Electoral Highness to sweep out all the filth your
self."

In the first letter he had threatened fiercely the hated Cardinal
with publishing what he knew (or possibly only feigned to know)
of his faults ; he would not " advise him to stir up the filth any
further " ; here in the second letter he charges him in a general
way with robbery, petty theft and fraud in the matter of Church
property, also with having cheated a woman of the town whom he
used to keep ; he deserved to be " hanged on a gallows three
times as high as the Giebichstein," where Schonitz had been
executed. Incidentally he promises him a new work that shall
reveal all his doings. The threatened work was, however, never
published, Albert's family, the Brandenburgs, having raised
objections at the Electoral Court of Saxony. Albert, however,
offered quite frankly to submit the Schonitz case and the
grievances raised by his relatives to the judgment of George of
Anhalt, one of the princes who had gone over to Lutheranism,
who was perfectly at liberty to take the advice of Jonas, nay,
even of Luther himself. " In this we may surely see a proof that
he was not conscious of being in the least blameworthy."1 At
any rate he seems to have been quite willing to lay his case even
before his most bitter foe.2

Such was Luther's irritability and quickness of temper,
even in private concerns, that, at times, even in his letters,
he would pour forth the most incredible threats.

On one occasion, in 1542, when a messenger sent by Justus
Jonas happened to offend him, he at once wrote an " angry
letter " to Jonas and on the next day followed it up with another
in which he says, that his anger has not yet been put to rest ;
never is Jonas to send such people into his house again or else
he will order them to be gagged and put under restraint.
" Remember this, for I have said it. This man may scold
and do the grand elsewhere, but not in Luther's house, unless
indeed he wants to have his tongue torn out. Are we going to
allow such caitiffs as these to play the emperor ? "3 — He had,
as we already know, a sad experience with a certain girl named
Rosina, whom he had engaged as a servant, but who turned out
to be a person of loose morals and brought his house into dis
repute. " She shall never again have the chance of deceiving
anyone so long as there is water enough in the Elbe," so he writes
of her to a judge. In letters to other persons he accuses her
of " villainy and fornication " ; she had " shamed all the
inmates of his house with the [assumed] name of Truchsess " ;
he could only think that she had been " foisted on him by the

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 420.

2 Enders, " Brief wechsel," 10, p. 297 ; Hulsse, p. 61.

3 On March 10, 1542, " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 5, p. 442.

108 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Papists as an arch-prostitute — the god-forsaken minx and lying
bag of trouble, who has damaged my household from garret to
cellar . . . accursed harridan and perjured, thieving drab that
she is ! " Away with her " for the honour of the Evangel."1

Even in younger days he had been too much accustomed to
give the reins to his excitement, as his two indignant letters (his
own description of them) to his brother monks at Erfurt show.2
Even his upbringing of his own children, highly lauded as it has
been, suffered from this same lack of self-control. " The mere
disobedience of a boy would stir him to his very depths. For
instance, he admits of a nephew he had living with him— a son
of his brother James — that once 'he angered me so greatly as
almost to be the death of me, so that for a while I lost the use of
my bodily powers.' "3 — So exasperated was he with the lawyers
who treacherously deceived the people that he went so far as to
demand that their tongues should be torn out. At times he
confesses his hot temper, owning and acknowledging that it was
" sinful " ; to such fits of passion he was still subject, but, as a
rule, his anger was at least both right and called for, for he could
not avoid being angry where it was " a question of the soul and
of hell." Anger, he also says, refreshed his inner man, sharpened
his wits and chased away his temptations ; he had to be angry in
order to write, preach or pray well.4

Repeatedly he seemed on the point of quitting Wittenberg for
ever in revenge for all the neglect he met with there ; "I can no
longer contain my anger and disappointment."5 It was to this
depression of spirits that he was referring when he said, that,
often, in his indignation, he had " flung down the keys on Our
Lord God's threshold."6 He sees his inability to change his
surroundings and how Popery refuses to be overthrown ; yet, as
he told us, he is determined to " rain abuse and curses on the
miscreants [the Papists] till he is carried to the grave," and to
provide the "thunder and lightning for the funeral" of the foe.7

A gloomy, uncanny passion often glows in his words and
serves to fire the fanatism of the misguided masses.

" Lo and behold how my blood boils and how I long to
see the Papacy punished ! " And what was the punishment
he looked for ? Just before he had said that the Pope, his

1 To Johann Goritz, judge at Leipzig, Jan. 29, 1544, ib., p. 625.
Cp. for the account of Rosina, vol. iii., pp. 217 f., 280 f.

2 Vol. i., p. 59. " Stupidce litterce " here perhaps means " indig
nant " rather than " amazed " letters.

8 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 483.

4 Mathesius, " Aufzeichn." (Loesche), p. 200. Cp. above vol. iii.,
p. 437 f.

5 To Catherine, end of July, 1545, " Brief e," ed. De Wette, 5,
p. 753.

6 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 127. Cp. above vol. iv., p. 276.

7 " Werke," Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 470 ; Erl. ed., 252, p. 127. " Widder
den Meuchler zu Dresen," 1531.

VIOLENT LANGUAGE 109

Cardinals and all his court should have " the skins of their
bodies drawn off over their heads ; the hides might then be
flung into the healing bath [the sea] at Ostia, or into the
fire," unless indeed they found means to pay back all the
alien property that the Pope, the " Robber of the Churches,
had stolen only to waste, lose and squander it, and to spend
it on whores and their ilk." Yet even this punishment fell
short of the crime, for " my spirit knows well that no tem
poral penalty can avail to make amends even for one Bull
or Decree."1

Side by side with language so astonishing we must put other
sayings which paint his habitual frame of mind in a light any
thing but favourable : " It is God's Word ! Let what cannot
stand fall ... no matter what!"2 "The Word is true, or
everything crumbles into ruin ! "3 " Even if you will not follow "
- — such were his words to Staupitz as early as 1521, "at least
suffer me to go on and be carried away [' ire et rapi ']." "I have
put on my horns against the Roman Antichrists " ;4 in these
words Luther compares himself to a raving bull.

This frame of mind tended to promote his natural tendency to
violence, hitherto repressed. His proposal to flay all the members
of the Roman Curia was not by any means his first hint at deeds
of blood ; such allusions occur in other shapes in earlier discourses,
particularly in his predictions of the judgments to come. The
Princes, nobility and towns, so he declared, must put their foot
down and prevent the shameful abuses of Rome : " If we mean
to fight against the Turks let us begin at home where they are
worst ; if we do right in hanging thieves and beheading robbers,
why then do we let Roman avarice go scot free, when all the
time it is the biggest thief and robber there ever has been or will
ever be upon the earth." Whoever comes from Rome bringing
in his pocket a collation to a benefice ought to be warned either
" to desist, or else to jump into the Rhine or the nearest pond,
and give the Roman Brief — letter, seals and all, a cold bath."5
Not without a shudder can one read the description in his
" Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft," written in his last days, of the
kinds of death best suited to the Pope and his Curia, of which the
flaying and the " bath " at Ostia is only one example. (Cp. below,
xxx., 2.) True enough he is careful to point out that such a
death will be theirs only should they refuse to amend their ways
and accept the Lutheran Evangel !

Ten years previously, in 1535, he had written to Melanchthon,

1 Ib., 262, p. 242, " Das Bapstum vom Teuffel gestifft," 1545.

2 Ib., Weim. ed., 33, p. 605 ; Erl. ed., 48, p. 342. Expos, of John
vi.-viii., 1530-1532. 3 Ib., p. 341.

4 Feb. 7, 1521, " Brief wechsel," 3, p. 83 f.

5 " Werke," Weim. ed., 6, pp. 427, 428 f. ; Erl. ed., 21, pp. 305 and
307. "An den christl. Adel," 1520. Cp. above p. 88 f.

110 LUTHER THE REFORMER

who shrank from acts of violence with what appeared to Luther
too great timidity : " Oh, that our most venerable Cardinals,
Popes and Roman Legates had more Kings of England to put
them to death ! "x These words he penned soon after Henry VIII
of England had sacrificed the lives of John Fisher, bishop of
Rochester, and his Chancellor, Sir Thomas More, to his sensual
passions and his thirst for blood. Luther adds, of the Pope and
the Curia, with the object of vindicating the sentence of death he
had passed on them, " They are traitors, thieves, robbers and
»regular devils. . . . They are out and out miscreants to the very
bottom of their hearts. May God only grant you too to see this." 2
Fury had stood by the cradle of Luther's undertaking and
under its gloomy auspices his cause continued to progress.
Without repeating what has already been said, it may suffice to
point out how his excitement frequently led him to take even
momentous steps which he would otherwise have boggled at.
Only too frankly he admitted to his friend Lang in 1519 and soon
after to Spalatin, that Eck had so exasperated him that he would
now shake himself loose and write and do things from which he
would otherwise have refrained. His early " jest " at Rome's
expense would now become a real warfare against her3 — as
though Rome was to be made to suffer for Eck and his violence.
In 1521, from apprehension of his violence and out of considera
tion for the Court, Spalatin had kept back two of Luther's
writings which the latter wished to be printed. " I shall get into
a towering rage," so the author wrote to him, " and bring out
much worse things on this subject afterwards if my manuscripts
are lost, or you refuse to surrender them. You cannot destroy
the spirit even though you destroy the lifeless paper."4 — This
incident at so early a date shows how deeply seated in him was
his tendency to violence ; even at the outset it was to some
extent personal animus which led him to shape his action as he
did. Self-esteem and the plaudits of the mob had even then
begun to dim his mental vision.

The part played by the first person is great indeed in
Luther's writings.

" We should all have fallen back into the state of the
brute ! " " Not for a thousand years has God bestowed
such great graces on any bishop as on me." " I, wonderful
monk that I am," have, by God's grace, overthrown the
devil of Rome ; "I have stamped off the heads of more than
twenty factions, as though they had been worms." Count-

1 " Utinam haberent plures reges Anglice, qui illos occiderent" Cp.
Paulus, " Protestantismus und Toleranz in 16. Jahrh.," 1911, p. 17 ff.

2 Dec., 1535, " Briefwechsel " 10, p. 275.

3 Feb. 3, 1519, " Briefwechsel," 1, p. 410 ; cp. to Spalatin, Feb. 7,
1519, ib., p. 412.

4 4-9 Dec., 1521, ib., 3', p. 253 : " Exacerbabitur mihi spiritud, ut
multo vehementiora deinceps in earn rem nihilominus moliar,"

HIS QUARRELSOMENESS 111

less other such utterances are to be found in what has gone
before.1 " He," so he declares, " was surely far too learned
to allow himself to be taught by the Swiss theologians " ;
this was one of the sayings that led the friends of the latter
to speak of his " tyrannical pride."2

Here come the fractious Sacramentarians, he says, and
want a share in my fame ; they want to celebrate a
" glorious victory " as though it was not from me that they
got everything. This is how things turn out, " one labours
and some other man takes the fruit."3 Carlstadt comes
forward and seeks to become a new doctor ; " he is anxious
to detract from my importance and to introduce among the
people his own regulations."4

A character wrhere the first person asserted itself so
imperiously could not but be a disputatious one. Down to
his very last years Luther's whole life was filled with strife :
quarrels with the jurists ; with his own theologians ; with
the Jews ; with the Princes and rapacious nobility ; with
the Popish foemen and with his own colleagues and followers,
even with the preachers and writers dearest to him.

Luther sought to safeguard his cause on every side, even
at the cost of concessions at variance with his duty, or by
grovelling subserviency to the Princes, whether he actually
granted their desire,5 or, as in the case of the bigamy of
Henry VIII of England, merely threw out a suggestion.6

His new ethical principles should surely have been
attested in his own person, above all by truthfulness. In
this connection we must, however, recall to mind the
observations made elsewhere. (Above, vol. iv., p. 80 ff.)

Who is the lover of truth who does not regret the advice
Luther gave from the Coburg to his followers at the Diet of
Augsburg, viz. to make use of cunning when the cause
seemed endangered ? Where does self-betterment come in
if " tricks and lapses " are to form a part of his life's task,
even though " with God's help " they were afterwards to

1 Vol. iv., p. 329 ff.

2 Oswald Myconius to Simon Grynseus, Nov. 8, 1534, in Kostlin-
Kawerau, 2, p. 665, from a MS. source : " Doctiorem se esse, quam qui
ab eiusmodi hominibus doceri velit " ; this showed his " tyrannica
superbia."

3 To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, " Briefe " ed. De Wette, 5, p. 728.

4 To Caspar Giittel, March 30, 1522, " Brief wechsel," 3, p. 326.

5 Vol. iv., p. 13 ff. 6 Ib., p. 3 ff.

112 LUTHER THE REFORMER

be amended ;x if, when treating of the most important church
matters, " reservation and subterfuge (' insidice ') " are not
only to be used but even to be represented as the work of
Christ ? Wherever the principle holds : Against the malice
of our opponents everything is lawful,2 there, undoubtedly,
the least honest will always have the upper hand. As to
how far Luther thought himself justified in going in order
to conceal his real intentions we may see from his letters to
the Pope, particularly from the last letter he addressed to
him, where the public assertion of his devotion to the Roman
Church coincides with his private admission to friends that
the Pope was Antichrist and that he had sworn to attack
him.3

In his relentless polemics against the Church — where he
does not hesitate to bring the most baseless of charges
against both her dignitaries and her institutions — we might
dismiss as not uncommon his tendency to see only what was
evil, eagerly setting this in the foreground while passing
over all that was good ; his eyes also served to magnify and
distort the dark spots into all manner of grotesque shapes.
But what tells more heavily against him is his having
evolved out of his own mind a mountain of false doctrines
which he foists on the Church as hers, though in reality not
one of them but the very opposite was taught in and by the
Church.

The Pope, he writes, for instance, in his " Vermanug " from the
Coburg, wants to " forbid marriage " and teaches that the " love
of woman " is to be despised ; this is one of the abominations
and plagues of Antichrist, for God created woman for the honour
and help of man."4 The state of celibacy, willingly embraced by
many under the Papacy, Luther decried in the same violent
writing as a " state befitting whores and knaves,"5 and he even
connects with it unmentionable abominations.

1 Cp. our vol. ii., p. 386 : " For when once we have evaded the
peril and are at peace, then we can easily atone for our tricks and
lapses (' dolos ac lapsus nostros '), because His [God's] mercy is over us,"
etc., for the word mendacia after dolos see vol. iv., p. 96.

2 See vol. iv., p. 95 : " In cuius [Antichristi] deceptionem et nequitiam
ob salutem animarum nobis omnia licere arbitramur."

3 Ib., p. 81 f.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 388 f. Cp. our vol. iv., p. 166 ff.

5 Ib., p. 391. "Even should the Pope, the bishops, the canons
and the people wish to remain in the state of celibacy, or the state of
whores and knaves — and even the heathen poet admits that fornica-

DISHONEST POLEMICS 113

He had declared " contempt of God " to be the mark of the
Papal Antichrist, but, in the booklet in question, and elsewhere,
we find him tirelessly charging with utter forgetfulness of God,
hatred of religion, nay, complete absence of Christian faith not
only the Pope and his advisers — who, none of them rose above
an Epicurean faith — but all his opponents, particularly those
who by their pen had damaged his doctrine. " Willingly enough
would I obey the Pope and all the bishops, but they require me
to deny Christ and His Gospel and to take of God a liar, there
fore I prefer to attack them."1 When, in addition to this, he
tries in all seriousness to make the people believe that at Rome
the Gospel and all it contained was scoffed at ; that the Papists
were all sceptics ; that their Doctors did not even know the Ten
Commandments ; that their priests were quite unable to quiet
any man's conscience ; that the popish doctrine spelt nothing
but murder, and that indeed every Papist must be a murderer,
etc.,2 one is tempted to seek for a pathological explanation of so
strange a phenomenon. Such explanations will, it is true, be
forthcoming in due course and will furnish grounds for a more
lenient judgment. Here it may suffice to instance the terrific
strength of will which dominated Luther's fiery warfare, and
which at times made him see things that others, even his own
followers, were absolutely unable to see. Fortunately his mad
statements concerning the Papists' love of murder found little
credence, any more than his repeated assurance that the Papists
were at heart on his side, at any rate their leaders, writers and
educated men.

He seems, however, also to believe many other monstrous
things : it was his discovery, that, " in the Papacy, men sought
to find salvation in Aristotle " ; this belief he attempted to
instil into the people in a sermon of 1528.3 In 1542 he assured
his friends in tones no less confident that the Papists had suc
ceeded in teaching nothing but idolatry, " for every work [as
taught by them] is idolatry. What they learnt was nothing but
holiness-by-works. . . . Man was to perform this or that ; to put
on a cowl or get his head shaved ; whoever did not do or believe
this was damned. Yet, on the other hand, even if a man did all
this they were unable to say with certainty whether thereby he
would be saved. Fie, devil, what sort of doctrine was this ! "4

The cowl and tonsure of the monks were particularly obnoxious
to him. He cherished the view that he had for ever extirpated
monkery ; he declared that even the heads of Catholicism would
not in future endure these hateful guests. To have been instru
mental in preparing such a fate for the sons of the most noble-
minded men, of St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic, and for all

tors and whoremongers are loath to take wives — still I hope you will
take pity on the poor pastors and those who have the cure of souls
and allow them to marry."

1 Cordatus, " Tageb./' p. 364. 2 Cp. vol, iv., p. 102 f.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 27, p. 286.

4 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 287,

114 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the monks generally, who had been the trustiest supports of the
faith, of the missions and of civilisation, this appears to him a
triumph, which he proceeds to magnify out of all proportion the
better to gloat over it.

" No greater service has ever been rendered to the bishops and
pastors," so he writes in his " Vermanug," " than that they
should thus be rid of the monks ; and I venture to surmise that
there is hardly anyone now at Augsburg who would take the part
of the monks and beg for their reinstatement. Indeed the bishops
will not permit such bugs and lice again to fasten on their fur
[their cappas], but are right glad that I have washed the fur so
clean for them."1 — The untruth of this is self-evident. If some
few short-sighted or tepid bishops among them were willing to
dispense with the monks, still this was not the general feeling
towards those auxiliaries of the Church, whom Luther himself
on the same page dubs the " Pope's right-hand men." But the
lie was calculated to impress those who possessed influence.

Further untruths are found in this booklet : Hitherto, the
monks, not the bishops, had " governed the churches " ; it was
merely his peaceable teaching and the power of the Word that
had " destroyed " the monks ; this the bishops, " backed by the
might of all the kings and with all the learning of the universities
at their command had not been able to do."2 Let no one
accuse him of " preaching sedition," so he goes on ; he had
merely " taught the people to keep the peace " ;3 he would much
rather have preferred to end his days in retirement ; " for me
there will be no better tidings than to hear that I had been
removed from the office of preacher " ; better and more pious
heretics than the Lutherans had never before been met with ; he
cannot deny that there is nothing lacking in his doctrine and in
that of his "followers . . . whatever their life may be."4

We have here a row of instances of the honesty of his
polemics and of the way in which he treated with the State
authorities concerning the deepest matters of the Church's
life. Often enough his polemics consist solely of unwarrant
able statements concerning his own pacific intentions and
salutary achievements, • supported by revolting untruths,
misrepresentations and exaggerations tending to damage
his opponents' case.

Beyond this we frequently find him having recourse to
low and unworthy language, and to filthy and unmannerly
abuse. (Vol. iv., p. 318 ff.)

" When they are most angry I say to the Papists," he cries in
his " Warnunge an seine lieben Deudschen," " My dear sirs,

" Werke," Erl. ed., 242, p. 364.
/&., p. 365. 3 Ib., p, 364.

4 Ib., p. 361,

BULLINGER ON LUTHER 115

leave the wall, relieve yourselves into your drawers and sling it
round your neck. ... If they do not care to accept my services,
then the devil may well be thankful to them ! " etc.1 " Oh, the
shameful Diet, such as has never before been held or heard of ...
an everlasting blot on the whole Empire ! What will the Turk
say ... to our allowing the accursed Pope with his minions to
fool and mock at us, to treat us as children, nay, as clouts and
blocks, to our behaving contrary to justice and truth, nay, with
such utter shamelessness in open Diet as regards their blasphemies,
their shameful and Sodomitic life and doctrines ? "2 These were
the words in which he described the Diet of Augsburg in 1530.

We may here recall the saying of Valentine Ickelsamer the
Anabaptist. At one time he had thought of espousing Luther's
cause, but " owing to the diabolical abuse " which he piled on
" erring men " it was possible to regard him only " as a non-
Christian." Luther wanted to overthrow his opponents simply
by words " of abuse " ; these " Saxon rogues of Wittenberg,"
" when unable to get what they want by means of a few kind
words, invoke on you all the curses of the devil."

Heinrich Bullinger complains repeatedly, and quite as bitterly,
of the frightful storm into which Luther's eloquence was apt
to break out. It is noteworthy that he applies what he says to
Luther's polemics, not merely against the Swiss, but against
other opponents. " Here all men have in their hands Luther's
King Harry of England, and another Harry as well, in his un
savoury Hans Worst ; item, they have Luther's book on the
Jews with its hideous letters of the Bible dropped from the
posterior of the pig, which the Jews may swallow, indeed, but
never read ; then, again, there is Luther's filthy, swinish Schem-
hamphorasch, for which some small excuse might have been found
had it been written by a swine-herd and not by a famous pastor
of souls."3

" And yet most people," so Bullinger says, " even go so far as
to worship the houndish, filthy eloquence of the man. Thus it
comes that he goes his way and seeks to outdo himself in vitupera
tion. . . . Many pious and learned people take scandal at his
insolence, which really is beyond measure." He should have
someone at his side to keep a check on him, so Bullinger tells
Bucer, for instance, his friend Melanchthon, " so that Luther may
not ruin a good cause with his wonted invective, his bitterness, his
torrent of bad words and his ridicule."4

And yet Luther at this very time, in his " Warnunge," calls
himself " the German Prophet " and " a faithful teacher."5

The following words of Erasmus contain a general censure :
" You wish to be taken for a teacher of the Gospel. In that case,
however, would it not better beseem you not to repel all the
prudent and well-meaning by your vituperation nor to incite men

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 291 ; Erl. ed., 252, p. 23.

2 Ib., p. 285- 14 f.

3 " Wahrhaffte Bekanntnuss," Bl. 9'. 4 Ib.

5 " Werke," Weim. ed., 30, 3, p. 290 ; Erl. ed., 252, p. 22.

116 LUTHER THE REFORMER

to strife and revolt in these already troubled times?"1 — " You
snarl at me as an Epicurean. Had I been an Epicurean and Jived
in the time of the Apostles and heard them proclaim the Gospel
with such invective, then I fear I should have remained an
Epicurean. . . . Whoever is conscious of teaching a holy
doctrine should not behave with insolence and delight in malicious
misrepresentation."2 " To what class of spirits," he had already
asked him, " does yours belong, if indeed it be a spirit at all ?
And what unevangelical way is this of inculcating the holy
Gospel ? Has perchance the risen Gospel done away with all the
laws of public order so that now one may say and write any
thing against anyone ? Does the freedom you are bringing back
to us spell no more than this ? "3

Kindlier Traits and Episodes

The unprejudiced reader will gladly turn his gaze from
pictures such as the above to the more favourable traits in
Luther's character, which, as already shown elsewhere,4
are by no means lacking.

Whoever has the least acquaintance with his Kirchen-
postille and Hauspostille will not scruple to acknowledge
the good and morally elevating undercurrent which runs
below his polemics and peculiar theories. For instance, his
exhortations, so warm and eloquent, to give alms to the
needy ; his glowing praise of Holy Scripture and of the
consolation its divine words bring to troubled hearts ; again,
his efforts to promote education and juvenile instruction ;
his admonitions to assist at the sermon and at Divine
worship, to avoid envy, strife, avarice and gluttony, and
private no less than public vice of every kind.

The many who are familiar only with this beautiful and
inspiring side of his writings, and possibly of his labours,
must not take it amiss if, in a work like the present, the
historian is no less concerned with the opposite side of
Luther's writings and whole conduct.

As a matter of fact, gentler tones often mingle with the
harsher notes, while the unpleasant traits just described
alter at times and tend to assume a more favourable aspect.
This is occasionally true of his severity, his defiant and
imperious behaviour. He not seldom, thanks to this art
of his, achieved good and eminently creditable results,

1 " Opp." 10, col. 1558. " Adv. ep. Lutheri."

2 76., 1555. 3 Ib., 1334. " Hyperaspistes."
4 Vol. iv., p. 228 ff.

THE KOHLHASE CASE 117

particularly in the protection of the poor or oppressed.
Many who were in dire straits were wont to apply to him in
order to secure his powerful intervention with the authori
ties on their behalf.

During the famine of 1539, when the nobles avariciously
cornered the grain, Luther made strong representations to
the Elector and begged him to come to the assistance of the
town. Nor, in the same year, did he hesitate to address a
severe " warning " to the Electoral steward, the Knight
Franz Schott of Coburg, when the town-council at his
instigation was moved to take too precipitate action.1

Best known of all, however, was his powerful intervention
in the case of a certain man whose misdeeds were the plague
of the Saxon Electorate from 1534 to 1540 ; this was Hans
Kohlhase, a Berlin merchant. He had been overreached in a
matter of two horses by a certain Saxon squire of Zaschwitz,
and had afterwards lost his case in the courts. In order to
obtain satisfaction Kohlhase formally gave out, that he
would " rob, burn, capture and hold to ransom " the
Saxons until he obtained redress. Incendiary fires broke
out shortly after in Wittenberg and the neighbourhood
which were laid to the charge of Kohlhase 's men. The
Elector could think of no better plan than to suggest a
settlement between the merchant, now turned robber-
knight, and the heirs of the above-mentioned squire ; it
was then that Kohlhase appealed to Luther for advice.

Luther replied with authority and dignity, not hesitating
to rebuke him for his unprincipled action. He would not
escape the wrath of God if he continued to pursue his
unheard-of course of private revenge, since it stands written
that " Vengeance is mine " ; the shameful acts of violence
which had been perpetrated by his men would be put down
to his account. He ought not to take the devil as his
sponsor. If in spite of all peaceful efforts he failed to
succeed in obtaining his due, then nothing was left but for
him to submit to the Divine decree, which was always for
our best, and to suffer in patience. He consoled him at the
same time in a friendly way for such injury and outrage as
he might have endured ; nor was it wrong to seek redress,
but this must be done within the right bounds.2

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 442.

2 Dec. 8, 1534, " Werke," Erl. ed., 55, p. 71 (" Brief wechsel," 10,

118 LUTHER THE REFORMER

The well-meaning letter, which does Luther credit, had
unfortunately no effect.

The attempted arbitration, owing to the leniency of the
Electoral agent, Hans Metzsch, ended so much to the
advantage of Kohlhase that the Elector, partly owing to his
strained relations with Brandenburg, refused to ratify it.
Kohlhase's bands came from Brandenburg and fell upon the
undefended castles and villages in the Saxon Electorate.
Their raids were also to some extent connived at by the
Elector of Brandenburg. They excited great terror even
at Wittenberg itself owing to sudden attacks made in the
vicinity of the town. New attempts to reach a settlement
brought them to a standstill for a while, but soon the strange
civil war — an echo of the Peasant Rising and Revolt of the
Knights — broke out anew and lasted until 1539.

Luther told his friends that such things could never have
taken place under the Landgrave of Hesse ; that, as the
principal actor had shed blood, he would himself die a
violent death. In 1539 he invited the Elector of Saxony
by letter to act as the father of his country ; he should come
to the assistance of his people who were at the mercy of
a criminal, nor should he leave the Elector of Brandenburg
a free hand if it were true that he was implicated in the
business.1

Finally Kohlhase, after committing excesses even in
Brandenburg itself, was executed at Berlin on March 22,
1540, being broken on the wheel.

On Luther's admonition to the robber, Protestant legend
soon laid hold, and, even in the second half of the 16th
century, we find it further embellished. There is hardly
a popular history of Luther to-day which does not give the
scene where Kohlhase, in disguise, knocks at Luther's door
one dark night and on his reply to the question, " Art thou

p. 88 f.) ; " Briefe," 4, p. 567 ff. : "To set ourselves up as judges and
ourselves to judge is assuredly wrong, and the wrath of God will not
leave it unpunished." " If you desire my advice, as you write, I
counsel you to accept peace, however you reach it, and rather to suffer
in your goods and your honour than to involve yourself further in such
an undertaking where you will have to take upon yourself all the crimes
and wickedness that are committed. . . . You must consider for how
much your conscience will have to answer if you knowingly bring
about the destruction of so many people."

1 Cp. Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 159. " Brief wechsel," 12,
pp. 84-102 ; 13, p. 13.

REALITY OF THE " REFORMATION ' 119

Kohlhase ? " is admitted by the latter, explains his quarrel
in the presence of Melanchthon, Cruciger and others and is
reconciled with God and his fellow-men ; he then promises
to abstain from violence in future as Luther and his people
are willing to help him to his rights, and the romantic visit
closes by the repentant sinner making his confession and
receiving the Supper.

The only chronicler of the March who relates this at the
date mentioned above fails to give any authority for his
narrative, nor can it, as Kostlin-Kawerau points out, be
assigned its place " anywhere in Kohlhase's life-story as
otherwise known to us."1 Luther's own statements con
cerning the affair, particularly his last ones, do not agree
with such an ending ; throughout he appears as the
champion of outraged justice against a public offender. The
not unkindly words in which Luther had answered Kohlhase's
request were probably responsible for the legend, which
sprang up all the easier seeing that numerous instances were
known where Luther's powerful intervention had succeeded
in restraining violence and in securing victory for the cause
of justice against the oppressor.2

The Reformation of the Church and Luther's Ethics

The defenders of the ancient faith urged very strongly
that the first step towards a real moral reformation of the
Church was to depict the Church as she was to be in accord
ance with Christ's institution and the best traditions, and
then, with the help of this standard, to see how far the
Church of the times fell short of this ideal ; in order to
re-form any institution, so they argued, we must be ac
quainted with its primitive shape so as to be able to revert
to it.

This they declared they had in vain asked of Luther, who,
on the contrary, seemed bent on subverting the whole
Church. They even failed to see that he had suggested any
means wherewith to withstand the moral shortcomings of
the age. In their eyes the radical and destructive changes
on which he so vehemently insisted spelt no real improve
ment ; the discontent with prevailing conditions which he

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 444.

2 Cp. C. A. Burkhardt, " Der historische Hans Kohlhase," 1864.

120 LUTHER THE REFORMER

preached to the people could not but create a wrong atmo
sphere ; nor could the abolishing of the Church's spiritual
remedies, the slighting of her commands and the revolting
treatment of the hierarchy serve the cause of prudent
Church reform.

Luther himself, in his so-called " Bull and Reformation,"
put forth his demands for the reform of ecclesiastical
conditions as they presented themselves to his mind during
the days of his fiercest struggle.1 The " Bull " does not,
however, afford any positive scheme of reformation, as the
title might lead one to suppose. It is made up wholly of
denials and polemics, and the same is true of his later works.

According to this writing the bishops are " not merely
phantoms and idols, but folk accursed in God's sight " ;
they corrupt souls, and, against them, " every Christian
should strive with body and substance." One should
" cheerfully do to them everything that they disliked, just
as though they were the devil himself." All those who now
are pastors must repudiate the obedience which they gave
" with the promise of chastity," seeing that this obedience
was promised, not to God, but to the devil, " just as a man
must repudiate a compact he has made with the devil."
" This is my Bull, yea, Dr. Luther's own," etc.

In this Luther was striking out a new road. Christ and
his Apostles had begun the moral reform of the world by
preaching the doing of " penance, for the Kingdom of
Heaven is at hand." True enough such a preaching can
never have been so popular with the masses as Luther's
invitation to overthrow the Church.

Luther's " Reformation " did not, however, consist merely
in the overthrow of the olden ecclesiasticism ; it also strove
to counteract much that was really amiss.

His action had this to recommend it, that it threw into
the full light of day the shady side of ecclesiastical life ; after
all, knowledge of the evil is already a step towards its
betterment. For centuries few had had the courage to point
a finger at the Church's wounds so insistently as Luther ;
at the ills rampant in the clergy, Church government and in
the faith and morals of the people. His piercing glance saw
into every corner, and, assisted by expert helpers, some of

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 140 ff. ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 178 ff. In
" Wyder den falsch genantten geystlichen Standt," 1522.

REALITY OF THE "REFORMATION'1 121

them formerly officials of the Curia, he laid bare every
regrettable disorder, needless to say not without exaggerat
ing everything to his heart's content. Practically, however,
Luther's revelations represent what was best in the move
ment which professed to aim at a reform of morals. Had he
not embittered with such unspeakable hate the long list
of shortcomings with which he persistently confronted the
olden Church, had he used it as a means of amendment and
not rather as a goad whereby to excite the masses, then one
might have been even more thankful to him.

It cannot be gainsaid that, particularly at the outset,
ethical motives were at work in him ; that he like others
felt the burden of the evil, was certainly no lie.

Yet it must not be forgotten that he attacked the Pope
and the Church so violently, not on account of any refusal
to amend, but in order to clear a path for his subversive
views of theology and for the " Evangel " which had been
condemned by ecclesiastical authority. The very magnitude
of the attack he led on the whole conception of the Church,
in itself proves that it was no mere question of defending
the rights of Christian ethics ; the removal of moral dis
orders from Christendom was to him but a secondary
concern, and, moreover, he certainly did everything he
could to render impossible any ordered abolishment of
abuses and any real improvement.

One may even ask whether he had any programme at all
for the betterment of the Church. The question is made
almost superfluous by the history of the struggle. He him
self never set up before his mind any regular programme for
his work, whether ecclesiastical, social or even ethical, when
once he had come to see that the idealist scheme in his
" An den christlichen Adel " was impossible of realisation.
Hence, when he had succeeded in destroying the old order
in a small portion of the Church's territory, he had perforce
to begin an uncertain search after something new whereby
to replace it ; nothing could be more hopeless than his
efforts to build up from the ruins a new Church and a new
society, a new liturgy and a new canon law, and to improve
the morals of the adherents of his cause. In spite of Luther's
aversion to the scheme, it came about that the whole work
of reformation was, by the force of circumstances, left to
the secular authorities ; from the Consistories down to the

122 LUTHER THE REFORMER

school-teachers, from the Marriage Courts down to the
guardians of the poor, everything came into the hands of the
State. Luther had been wont to complain that the Church
in olden days had drawn all secular affairs to herself. Since
his day, on the other hand, everything that pertained to
the Church was secularised. The actual result was a
gradual alienation of secular and ecclesiastical, quite at
variance with the theories embodied in the faith. In this
it is impossible to see a true reformation in any moral
meaning of the word, and Luther's ethics, which made all
secular callings independent of the Church, failed in the
event to celebrate any triumph.

The better to appreciate certain striking contrasts between
the olden Church and her ratification of morality on the one
hand and Luther's thought on the other, we may glance at
his attitude towards canonisation and excommunication.

Canonisation and excommunication are two opposite poles
of the Church's life ; by the one the Church stamps her
heroes with the seal of perfection and sets them up for the
veneration of the faithful ; by the other she excludes the
unworthy from her communion, using thereto the greatest
punishment at her command. Both are, to the eye of faith,
powerful levers in the moral life.

Luther, however, laughed both to scorn. The ban he
attacked on principle, particularly after he himself had
fallen under it ; in this his action differed from that of
Catholic writers, many of whom had written against the ban
though only to lament its abuse and its too frequent employ
ment for the defence of the material position of the clergy.

The Pope, according to Luther, had made such a huge " mess
in the Church by means of the Greater Excommunication that
the swine could not get to the end with devouring it."1 Chris
tians, according to him, ought to be taught rather to love the
ban of the Church than to fear it. We ourselves, he cries, put
the Pope under the ban and declare that " the Pope and his
followers are no believers."

Later on, however, he came to see better the use of ghostly
penalties for unseemly conduct and made no odds in em
phasising the right of the community as such to make use of
exclusion as a punishment ; in view of the increase of disorders
he essayed repeatedly to reintroduce on his own authority a sort
of ban in his Churches.2

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 44, p. 84. In the sermons on Mt. xviii.-xxiii.

2 See xxix., 8.

SAINT-WORSHIP 123

As early as 1519 Luther had expressed his disapproval of the
canonising of Saints by the Church, a practice which stimulated
the moral efforts of the faithful by setting up an ideal and by
encouraging daily worship ; he added, however, that " each one
was free to canonise as much as he pleased."1 In 1524, however,
he poured forth his wrath on the never-ending canonisations ;
as a rule they were " nothing but Popish Saints and no Christian
Saints " ;2 the foundations made in their honour served " merely
to fatten lazy gluttons and indolent swine in the Churches " ;
before the Judgment Day no one could " pronounce any man
holy " ; Elisabeth, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Bernard and
Francis, even he regarded as holy, though he would not stake
his life on it, seeing there was nothing about them in Holy
Scripture ; " but the Pope, nay, all the angels, had not the
power of setting up a new article of faith not contained in Scrip
ture."3

On May 31, 1523, was canonised the venerable bishop Benno
of Meissen, a contemporary of Gregory VII. Luther was in
censed to the last degree at the thought of the special celebration
to be held in 1524 in the town — the Duchy being still Catholic —
in honour of the new Saint. He accordingly published his
" Against the new idol and olden devil about to be set up at
Meyssen."4 His use of the term " devil " in the title he vindi
cates as follows on the very first page : Now, that, " by the
grace of God, the Gospel has again arisen and shines brightly,"
" Satan incarnate " is avenging himself " by means of such
foolery " and is causing himself to be worshipped with great
pomp under the name of Benno. It was not in his power to
prevent Duke George setting up the relics at Meissen and erecting
an artistic and costly altar in their honour. The only result of
Luther's attack was to increase the devotion of clergy and people,
who confidently invoked the saintly bishop's protection against
the inroads of apostasy. The attack also led Catholic writers in
the Duchy to publish some bitter rejoinders. The rudeness of
their titles bears witness to their indignation. " Against the
Wittenberg idol Martin Luther " was the title of the pamphlet
of Augustine Alveld, a Franciscan Guardian ; the work of Paul
Bachmann, Abbot of Alte Zelle, was entitled "Against the
fiercely snorting wild-boar Luther," and that of Hieronymus
Emser, " Reply to Luther's slanderous book." The last writer
was to some extent involved in the matter of the canonisation
through having published the Legend of the famous Bishop.
This he had done rather uncritically and without testing his
authorities, and for this reason had been read a severe lesson by
Luther.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 2, p. 651 f. ; " Opp. lat. var.," 2, p. 511.
In the " Defensio contra Eccii iudicium."

2 Ib., Weim. ed., 15, p. 183 ; Erl. ed., 242, p. 251. " Widder den
newen Abgott und allten Teuffel der zu Meyssen sol erhaben werden."

3 Ib., p. 194 f. = 264.
* Ib., p. 175 = 249.

124 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Luther's opposition to this canonisation was, however,
by no means dictated by historical considerations but by his
hatred of all veneration of the Saints and by his aversion to
the ideal of Christian self-denial, submissive obedience to
the Church and Catholic activity of which the canonised
Saints are models. He himself makes it easy to answer the
question whether it was zeal for the moral reformation of
the Church which drove him to assail canonisation and the
veneration of the Saints ; nowhere else is his attempt to
destroy the sublime ideal of Christian life which he failed to
understand and to drag down to the gutter all that was
highest so clearly apparent as here. The real Saints, so he
declared, were his Wittenbergers. Striving after great
holiness on the part of the individual merely tended to
derogate from Christ's work ; the Evangelical Counsels
fostered only a mistaken desertion of the world.

Judging others by his own standard, he attempted to drag
down the Saints of the past to the level of mediocrity. Real
Saints must be " good, lusty sinners who do not blush to
insert in the Our Father the ' forgive us our trespasses.' '
It was " consoling " to him to hear, that the Apostles, too,
even after they had received the Holy Ghost, had at times
been shaky in their faith, and " very consoling indeed " that
the Saints of both Old and New Covenant " had fallen into
great sins " ; only thus, so he fancies, do we learn to know
the " Kingdom of Christ," viz. the forgiveness of sins.
Even Abraham, agreeably with Luther's interpretation of
Josue xxiv. 2, was represented to have worshipped idols,
in order that Luther might be able to instance his con
version and say : Believe like him and you will be as holy
as he.1

The Reformation in the Duchy of Saxony considered as
typical

In 1539, after the death of Duke George, at Luther's
instance, the protestantising of the duchy of Saxony was
undertaken with unseemly haste ; to this end Henry, the
new sovereign, ordered a Visitation on the lines of that
held in the Saxon Electorate and to be carried out by

1 Cp. vol. iii., p. 191 f. ; 211 f. and Joh. Wieser in "Luther und
Ignatius von Loyola" (" Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol.," 7 (1883) and 8
(1884), particularly 8, p. 365 ff.).

THE SAXON REFORMATION 125

preachers placed at his disposal by the Elector. Jonas and
Spalatin now became the visitors for Meissen. Before this,
on the occasion of the canonisation of St. Benno, Spalatin,
in a letter to Luther, had treated the canonisation as
a laughing matter. On July 14, the visitors, alleging the
authority of the Duke, summoned the Cathedral Chapter at
Meissen to remove the sepulchre of St. Benno. On this
being met by a refusal armed men were sent to the Cathedral
the following night. " ' They broke into fragments the
richly ornamented sepulchre of the Saint, together with the
altar,' to quote the words of the bishop's report to the
Emperor, ' they decapitated a wooden statue of St. Benno
and stuck it up outside as a butt for ridicule.' "x

Luther, for his part, in a letter to Jonas of August 14 of
the same year, has his little joke about the visitors' undoing
of the canonisation of Benno. ' You have unsainted Benno
and have shown no fear of Cochlseus, Schmid, nor of the
Nausei and Sadoleti, who teach the contrary. They are
indignant with you, ultra-sensitive men that they are, know
ing so little of grammar and so much less of theology."2

Nor did the progress of the overthrow of the Church
throughout the Duchy bear the least stamp of moral reform.
The very violence used forbids our applying such a term to
the work. The Catholic worship at the Cathedral was at
once abolished and replaced by Lutheran services and
preaching. The priests were driven into exile, the bishop
alone being permitted to carry on " his godless papistical
abominations and practices openly in his own residence "
(the Castle of Stolpen). At the demand of the Witten-
bergers the professors at Leipzig University who refused to
conform to the Lutheran doctrine were dismissed. Melanch-
thon insisted, that, if they refused to hold their tongues,
they must be driven out of the land as " blasphemers." The
new preachers publicly abused the friends, clerical and lay,
of the late Duke to such an extent that the Estates were
moved to make a formal complaint. Churches and
monasteries were plundered and the sacred vessels melted
down.3

Maurice, the son of Duke Henry, who succeeded in 1541,

1 Janssen, "Hist, of the German People" (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 54.

" Brief wechsel," 12, p. 231.
3 Cp. Janssen, ib.

126 LUTHER THE REFORMER

showed himself even more violent and relentless in ex
tirpating the olden system.

The profoundly immoral character of this reformation,
the interference with the people's freedom of conscience,
the destruction of religious traditions which the peaceable
inhabitants had received a thousand years before from holy
missionaries and bishops, merely on the strength of the
new doctrines of a man who claimed to have a better Gospel
— all this was expressly sanctioned and supported by
Luther.

He wrote in a memorandum on the proceedings : " There is
not much room here for discussion. If my gracious Duke Henry
wishes to have the Evangel, then His Highness must abolish
idolatry, or not afford it protection . . . otherwise the wrath
of heaven will be too great." As a " sovereign appointed by
God " the ruler " owed it to Him to put down such horrible,
blasphemous idolatry by every means in his power." This was
nothing more than " defending Christ and damning the devil " ;
an example had been given by the " former kings of Juda and
Israel," who had abolished " Baal and all his idolatry," and later
by Const an tine, Theodosius and Gratian. For it was as much
the duty of princes and lords as of other people to serve God and
the Lord Christ to the utmost of their power. Away, therefore,
with the abbots and bishops " since they are determined to remain
blasphemers . . . they are blind leaders of the blind ; God's
wrath has come upon them ; hence we must help in the matter
as much as we can."1

Yet the Christian emperors here appealed to could have fur
nished Luther with an example of forbearance towards heathen
Rome and its religious works of art which might well have shamed
him. He did not know that at Rome the defacing and damaging
of temples, altars or statues was most strictly forbidden, and that,
for instance, Pope Damasus (f384) had been formally assured by
the city-prefect that never had a Christian Roman appeared
before his tribunal on such a charge.2 Elsewhere, however, such
acts of violence were not unknown.

Luther's spirit of persecution was quite different from the
spirit which animated those Roman emperors who came over to
Christianity. It was their desire to hasten the end of an out
worn religion of superstition, immorality and idolatry. With
them it was a question of defending and furthering a religion
sent from heaven to renew the world and which had convincingly
proved the divinity of its mission by miracles, by the blood of
martyrs and by the striking holiness of so many thousands of
confessors.

1 July, 1539, " Brief wechsel," 12, p. 188.

2 Cp. my " Hist, of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages "
(Engl. Trans., i., pp. 9-26).

THE CURRENTS OF THE AGE 127

It was against the faithful adherents of this very religion
that, on the pretext of the outward corruption under which
it groaned, Luther perpetrated so many acts of violence
regardless of the testimony of a thousand years of beneficent
labours. His ingratitude towards the achievements of the
olden Church in the education of the nations, his deliberate
ignoring of the great qualities which distinguished her and
in his day could still have enabled her to carry out her own
moral regeneration from within, are incompatible with his
having been a true moral reformer.

The Aims of the Reformation and the Currents of the Age

Looking at the state of the case from the standpoint of the
olden Catholic Church a closer historical examination shows
that what she needed above all was a strengthening of her
interior organisation.1

In vieAV of the tendency to split up into separate States,
in view of the decay of that out\vard bond of the nations
under the Empire which had once been her stay, and of the
rise of all sorts of new elements of culture requiring to be
exploited for the glory of God and the spiritual betterment
of mankind, a consolidation of the Church's structure was
essential. The Primacy indeed was there, exercised its
functions and was recognised, but what was needed was
a more direct recognition of a purified Papacy. The bond
of unity between the nations within the Church needed to
be more clearly put in evidence. This could best be done by
allowing the significance of a voluntary submission to the
authority appointed by God, and of the Primacy, to sink
more deeply into the consciousness of Christendom. This
was all the more called for, now that the traditional devotion
to Rome had suffered so much owing to the great Schism
of the West, to the reforming Councils and the prevalence
of Gallican ideas, and that the splendour of the Papacy
seemed now on the wane. The excessive concern of the
Popes in politics and the struggle they had waged in Italy
in the effort to establish themselves more securely had by no
means contributed to increase respect for the power of the
keys in its own peculiar domain, viz. the spiritual.

1 In what follows we have drawn largely on J. Wieser (see above,
p. 124, n. 1).

128 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Thus any reformer seeking to improve the Church's
condition had necessarily to face this task first of all. — Many
other moral requirements arising out of the then state of
society had, however, also to be borne in mind.

It was necessary to counteract, by laying stress on what
had been handed down, the false subjectivism and universal
scepticism which the schools of philosophy had let loose on
the world ; also to oppose the cynicism, lack of discipline
and love of destruction which characterised Humanism, by
infusing into education the true spirit of the Church. Both
these tasks could, however, be accomplished only by men
filled with respect for tradition who while on the one hand
broad-mindedly accepting the new learning, i.e. without
questioning or distrusting reason and its rights, on the other
hand possessed the power and the will to spiritualise the
new culture. The disruptive tendency of the nations, the
counterpart in international politics of the prevalent in
dividualism, required to be corrected by laying stress on
the underlying common ground. The undreamt-of enlarge
ment of the Church through the discovery of new lands had
to be met by organisations, the members of which were
filled with love of self-denial and zeal for souls. At the same
time the materialism, which was a consequence of the great
increase of wealth brought from foreign lands, had to be
checked. To oppose the alarming growth of Turkish power
it was necessary to preach self-sacrifice, manly courage and
above all Christian unity amongst those in power, amongst
those who in former times had sallied forth against the East
strong in the feeling of being one family in the faith. A still
worse foe to Christian society was to be found in moral
discouragement and exhaustion ; there was need of a new
spirit to awaken the motive force of religious life and to
stir men to a more active use of the means of grace.

If we compare the moral aims and motives which inspired
Luther's reformation, with the great needs of the times, as
just described, we cannot fail to see how far short he fell of
the requirements.

Most of the aims indicated were quite strange to him.
Judging from the standpoint of the olden Church, he
frequently sought the very opposite of what was required.
Some few instances may be cited.

So little did Luther's reformation tend to realise the

HIS SUBJECTIVISM 129

sublime moral principle of the union and comradeship of
the nations, that, on the contrary, he encouraged national
ism and separatist tendencies even in Church matters. Where
his idea of a National Church prevailed, there the strongest
bond of union disappeared completely.1 The more the
authority of the Empire was subverted by the separatists,
by religious Leagues and violent inroads of princes and
sovereign towns within the Empire, the more the idea of
unity, which at one time had been so great a power for
good, had to suffer. He complained that the nations and
races were as unfriendly to each other as devils. But for
him, the rude Saxon, to abuse all who dwelt outside his
borders in the most unmeasured terms, and to pour out the
vials of his wrath and vituperation on the Latin nations
because they were Catholic could hardly be regarded as
conducive to better harmony. When he persistently
declared in his writings and sermons that the real Turks
were to be found at home, or when he fanned the flames of
fraternal hatred against the Papists within the Fatherland,
such action could scarcely promote a more effectual resist
ance to the danger looming in the East. The Bible, accord
ing to him, was to serve as the means of uniting the people
of God. He flung it amongst the people at a time when
everything was seething with excitement ; yet he himself,
in spite of all his praise of Bible study, was moved to
execrate the results. It seemed, so he declared, as though
it had been done merely " in order that each one might
bore a hole where his snout happened to be."2

As to subjectivism, the dominant evil of the age, he him
self carried it to its furthest limits, relentlessly condemning
everywhere whatever did not appeal to him and exalting
his personal views and feelings into a regular law ; sub
jectivism pervades and spoils his whole theology, and, in
the domain of ethics, puts both personality and conscience
on a new and very questionable basis.3 The subjective
principle as used by him and exalted into an axiom, might
be invoked equally by any religious faction for its own ends.
We need only recall Luther's theory of the lonely isolation
of the individual in the matter of faith.

1 Wieser rightly points out that Luther claimed above all to be a
" National Prophet " ; he was fond of saying that he had brought the
Gospel "to the Saxons," or " to the Germans." Ib., 8, pp. 143 f., 356.

2 Ib., 8, p. 352. 3 Above, pp. 3 ff. and 66 ff.

V. — K

130 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Again, if that transition period between mediaeval and
modern times was suffering from moral and religious
exhaustion and was inclined to be pessimistic concerning
spiritual goods, and if, for its moral reform, what was
needed was a leader deeply imbued with faith in revelation,
able by the very strength of his faith to arouse the world of
his day, and to inspire the lame and timid with enthusiasm
and delight in the ancient treasures of religion — then, again,
one is forced to ask whether such a man as Luther, even
apart from his new and erroneous doctrines, had the requi
site strong and overbearing devotion to supernatural
truths ? Is it not Luther who speaks so often of the weak
ness of his faith, of his doubts and his inward trials, and who,
in order to reassure himself, declares that everyone, even
the Apostles, the martyrs and the saints, were acquainted
with the like ?

Not only did he not fight against pessimism, but, as the
years went by, he even built it into a truly burdensome
system. Towards the end of his life, owing both to his
theories and to his experiences, he became a living embodi
ment of dejection, constituting himself its eloquent advocate.
His view of the history of the kingdom of Christ was the
gloomiest imaginable. Everywhere he saw the power of
the devil predominant throughout the whole course of the
world's history.

Not only is everything in the world outside of Christ Satanic,
but even the ancient people of God, chosen with a view to the
coming Redeemer, according to Luther, " raged and stormed "
against the faith. But " the fury of the Jews " was exceeded by
the " malice " which began to insinuate itself into the first
Church not very long after its foundation. What the Jews did
was " but a joke and mere child's play " compared with the cor
ruption of the Christian religion by means of " human ordinances,
councils and Papistry." Hardly had the light enkindled by Christ
begun to shine before it gradually nickered out, until lighted again
by Luther. In the East prevailed the rule of the Turks, those
devils incarnate, whilst the West groaned under the Papacy,
which far exceeds even the Islam in devilry.1

His pessimism sees the origin of the corruption in the Church
in the fact, that, already in the first centuries, " the devil had
broken into Holy Scripture and made such a disturbance as to
give rise to many heresies." To counteract these the Christians
surrendered themselves to human ordinances ; " they knew of

1 Cp. Wieser, ib., 8, p. 353.

HIS PESSIMISM 131

no other way out of the difficulty than to set up a multitude of
Councils side by side with Scripture." " In short, the devil is
too clever and powerful for us ; everywhere he is an obstacle and
a hindrance. If we go to Scripture, he arouses so much dissension
and strife that we grow sick of the Word and afraid to trust to
it. Yet if we rely on human councils and counsels, we lose
Scripture altogether and become the devil's own, body and soul."
This evil was not solely due to setting up human ordinances in
the place of Scripture, but also to the preference shown in theory
to works which arose when people saw, that " works or deeds did
not follow " from the preaching of the Apostles, " as they should
have done." " Hence the new disciples set to work to improve
upon the Master's building and proceeded to confuse two different
things, viz. works and faith. This scandal has been a hindrance
to the new doctrine of faith from the beginning even to the present
day."

From all this one would rather gather that the fault lay more
in the nature of Christianity than in the devil.

Luther's pessimistic tendency also expresses itself in the
conviction, that it was the " gruesome, frightful and boundless
anger of God " that was the cause of the desolation of Christen
dom during so many centuries, though he assigns no reason for
such anger on the part of God.

His gloomy view of the world, exercising an increasing domina
tion over him, led him to take refuge in fatalistic grounds for
consolation, which, according to his wont, he even attributed to
Christ who had inspired him with them. Haunted by his dia
bolical visions he finally became more deeply imbued with
pessimism than any present-day representative of the pessimistic
philosophy.

" Here you are living," so he writes to one of his friends, " in
the devil's own den of murderers, surrounded by dragons and
serpents. Of two things one must happen ; either the people
become devils to you, or you yourself become a devil."1

Formerly he had looked forward with some courage and
confidence to the possibility of a change. But even his
courage, particularly at critical junctures, for instance, at
the Coburg and during the Diet of Augsburg, more resembled
the wanton rashness of a man who seeks to set his own fears
at defiance. At any rate his peculiar form of courage in
faith was not calculated to give a fresh stimulus, amid the
general relaxation and exhaustion, to religious enthusiasm
and the spirit of cheerful self-sacrifice for the highest aims
of human life. On the other hand, his success was largely
due to the discouragement so widely prevalent. We meet
with a mournful echo of this discouragement in the sayings

1 Wieser, ib., 8, p. 387.

132 LUTHER THE REFORMER

of certain contemporary Princes of the Church, who seem
to have given up everything for lost. Many who had been
surprised and overwhelmed by the sudden bursting of the
storm were victims of this depression.

Luther not only failed to direct the unfavourable ten
dencies of the age into better channels, but even to some
extent allowed himself to be carried away by them.

Even so strong a man as he, was keenly affected by the
spirit of the age. In some respects it is true his work
exercised a lasting effect on the prevalent currents, but in
others he allowed his work to be dominated by the spirit
then abroad. To the nominalistic school of Occam he owed
not only certain of his doctrines but also his disputatious
and subversive ways, and his method of ignoring the general
connection between the truths of faith and of making the
most of the grounds for doubt. Pseudo-mystic influences
explain both his subjectivism and those quietistic princi
ples, traces of which are long met with in his writings.
Humanism increased his aversion to the old-time scholasti
cism, his animosity to the principles of authority and
tradition, his contempt for all things mediaeval, his lack of
appreciation for, and unfairness to, the religious orders no
less than the paradox and arrogance of his language. A
strain of coarse materialism runs through the Renaissance.
In Luther, says Paulsen, " we are reminded of the Renais
sance by a certain coarse naturalism with which the new
Evangel is spiced, and which, in his attacks on celibacy
and the religious life, occasionally leads Luther to speak as
though to abstain from carnal works was to rebel against
God's Will and command."1 To the tendency of the
Princes to exalt themselves Luther yielded, even at the
expense of the liberties and well-being of the people, simply
because he stood in need of the rulers' support. The spirit
of revolt against the hierarchy which was seething amongst
the masses and even among many of the theologians, and
which the disorders censured in the Gravamina of the
various Diets had brought almost to the point of explosion,
carried Luther away ; even in those writings which con
temporaries and aftercomers were to praise as his greatest
achievement and, in fact, in his whole undertaking in so far
1 " Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts," I2, 1896, p. 174.

THE CHURCH APART 133

as it involved separation from Rome, he was simply following
the trend of his time.

8. The Church Apart of the True Believers

Luther's sad experiences in establishing a new Church
led him for several years to cherish a strange idea ; his then
intention was to unite the true believers into a special band
and to restrict the preaching of the Gospel to these small
congregations which would then represent the real Church.

This idea of his of gathering together the true Christians
has already been referred to cursorily elsewhere,1 but it is
of such importance that it may well be dealt with somewhat
more in detail.

Luther's Theory of the Church Apart prior to 1526

On the whole the idea which Luther, previous to 1526,
expressed over and over again as clearly as could be desired
and never rejected later, viz. of uniting certain chosen
Christians — the true believers — in a " congregation apart "
and of regarding the remainder, i.e. the ordinary members
of the flock which followed him, or popular Church as it was
termed, as a mere lump still to be kneaded, gives us a deep
insight into the development which his conception of the
Church underwent and into his opinion of the position of his
congregations generally. The idea was an outcome more of
circumstances than of reflection, more a fanciful expedient
than a consequence of his theories ; thus it was that it suffered
shipwreck on the outward conditions which soon showed
that the plan was impossible of realisation. It really
originated in the moral disorders rampant in the new
Church, particularly at Wittenberg. So few of those who
followed him allowed their hearts to be touched by the
Evangel, and yet all, none the less, claimed not merely to
be called Evangelicals but even to share in the Supper.
Luther saw that this state of things was compromising the
good name of the work he had started.

After the refusal of the Princes and nobles to listen to his
appeal to amend the state of Christendom, he determined
to take his stand on the congregational principle. He fondly

1 See above, vol. iii., p. 2-5 ff.

134 LUTHER THE REFORMER

expected that, thanks to the supposed inward power of
reform in the new communities, all his proposals would soon
be put into execution, the old system of Church government
swept away and a new order established more in accordance
with his views. Hence in the writing to the magistrates and
congregation of Prague, " De instituendis ministris ecclesice "
(Nov., 1523), which, without delay, he caused to be trans
lated into German,1 he strove to show, how, everywhere,
the new Church system was to be established from top to
bottom by the selection of pastors by members of the
congregation filled with faith (" Us qui credunt, hcec scri-
bimus ").2 According to this writing, the Visitors and
Archbishop yet to be chosen by the zealous clergy, were to
live only for the sake of the pastors and the congregations,
whom they had to better by means of the Word. The
faithful congregations " will indeed be weak and sinful "
Luther had 110 hope of setting up a Church of the perfect —
but, " seeing they have the Word, they are at least not
ungodly ; they sin indeed, but, far from denying, they confess
the Word."3 " Luther's optimism," says Paul Drews,
" saw already whole parishes converted into congregations
of real Christians, realising anew the true Church of the
Apostolic ideal."4

In the same year, 1523, on Maundy Thursday, he for the first
time spoke publicly, in a sermon delivered at Wittenberg, of the
plan he had long cherished of segregating the " believing "
Christians from the common herd . This was when publishing a new
rule on the receiving of the Supper, making Penance, or at least
a general confession of sin, a condition of reception. In future
all were no longer to be allowed to approach the Sacrament
indiscriminately, but only those who were true Christians ;
hence communion was to be preceded by an examination in
faith, i.e. by the asking of certain questions on the subject. The
five questions, and the answers, which were printed with a
preface by Bugenhagen, practically constituted an assurance of
a sort to the dispensers of the Sacrament that the communicants

1 Vol. ii., p. 111. " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 169 ff. ; " Opp. lat.
var.," 6, p. 494 sqq.

2 " Werke," ib., p. 192 = p. 528. 3 Ib., p. 194=532.

4 " Entsprach das Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers ? "
(" Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche," 1908, Suppl., p. 38.) The striking
new works of Hermelink, K. Miiller, etc., have already been referred
to elsewhere. In addition we must mention K. Holl, " Luther und das
landesherrliche Kircheriregiment " ("Zeitschr. f. Theol. und Kirche,"
1911, Suppl.), where the writer takes a view of the much-discussed
question different from that of K. Miiller.

THE CHURCH APART 135

approached from religious motives and that they received the
Body and Blood of Christ as a sign of the forgiveness of their
sins.

" It must be a faith," says Luther in this sermon, " which God
works in you, and you must know and feel that God is working
this in you." But did it come to a " serious self-examination you
would soon see how few are Christians and how few there would
be who would go to the Sacrament. But it might be arranged and
brought about, as I greatly wish, for those in every place who
really believe to be set apart and distinguished from the others.
I should like to have done this long ago, but it was not feasible ;
for it has not been sufficiently preached and urged as yet."
Meanwhile, instead of " separating " the true believers (later on
he speaks of private sermons for them to be preached in the
Augustinian minster) he will still address his discourse to all,
even though it be not possible to know " who is really touched
by it," i.e. who really accepts the Gospel in faith ; but it was
thus that Christ and the Apostles had preached, " to the masses,
to everyone ; . . . whoever can pick it up, let him do so. . . .
But the Sacrament ought not thus to be scattered broadcast
amongst the people in the way the Pope did."1

In the " Formula missce " from about the beginning of Dec., 1523,
he again speaks of the examination of the communicants, and
adds that it was enough that this should take place once a year,
while, in the case of educated people, it might well be omitted
altogether ; the examination by the " bishop " (i.e. the pastor)
must however extend also to the " life and conduct " of the
communicants. "If he sees a man addicted to fornication,
adultery, drunkenness, gambling, usury, cursing or any other
open vice he is to exclude him from the Supper unless he has
given proof of amendment." Moreover, those admitted to the
Sacrament are to be assigned a special place at the altar in order
that they may be seen by all and their moral conduct more easily
judged of all. He would, however, lay down no commands on
such matters, but leave everything, as was his wont, to the good
will of free Christian men. 2

The introduction of the innovation was, moreover, to depend
entirely on the consent of the congregation, agreeably with his
theory of their rights. This he said in a sermon of Dec. 6, 1523. 3
It was probably in that same month that the plan was tried.

These preliminary attempts at the formation of an
assembly of true Christians were no more crowned with
success than his plan for the relief of the poor by means of

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 484 f. ; Erl. ed., II2, p. 205 f. Cp. ib.,
p. 481 = 201 f., and Erl. ed., IP, p. 82 f.

2 Ib., Weim. ed., 12, p. 215 f. ; " Opp. lat. var.," 7, 13. On the
" Formula missce" see below, xxix., 9.

3 Ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210. The Latin version reads : " Si
Dominus dederit in cor vestrum, ut simul probetis" etc.

136 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the so-called common box, or his efforts to establish a new
system of penalties. Hence he declared, that, owing to the
Wittenbergers' want of preparation, he was obliged to put
off its execution " until our Lord God forms some Chris
tians." For the time being " we have not got the necessary
persons." In 1524 he told them that " neither charity nor
the Gospel could make any headway amongst them."1 In
the Wittenberg congregation he could " not yet discern a
truly Christian one."2 He nevertheless permitted the whole
congregation to take its share, when, in the autumn of 1523,
the town-council appointed Bugenhagen to the office of
parish-priest ; this he did agreeably with his ideas concerning
the rights of the congregation.

Meanwhile, however, the ideal of a whole parish of true
believers seemed about to be realised elsewhere. Full of
apparent zeal for the new Evangel, the magistrates and
burghers of Leisnig on the Mulde drafted a scheme for a
" common box " and begged Luther to send them some
thing confirming their right to appoint a minister — the town
having refused to accept the lawfully presented Catholic
priest — and also a reformed order for Divine worship. The
instructive incident has already been mentioned.3

Luther seized eagerly on the opportunity of calling into
existence at Leisnig a community which might in turn prove
a model elsewhere. From the establishment of such
congregations he believed there would result a system of
new Churches independent indeed, though supported by
the authorities, which might then take the place of the
Papal Church now thought on the point of expiry. The
idealistic dreams with which, as his writings show, the
proceedings at Leisnig filled his mind would seem to have
been responsible both for his project for Wittenberg and
for his letter to the Bohemians previously referred to. The
fact that they belonged to the same time is at any rate
a remarkable coincidence.

He promised the town-council of Leisnig (Jan. 29, 1523)
that he would have their scheme for the establishment of
a common fund printed, 4 and this he did shortly after, adding
an introduction of his own.5

1 Ib., 12, p. 693 ; cp. 697. On the Wittenberg Poor Box see below,
vol. vi. xxxv., 4. 2 P. Drews, p. 55.

3 Vol. ii., p. 113 ; cp. vol. iii., p. 27. 4 " Brief wechsel," 4, p. 70.
6 " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 11 ff. ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 106 ff.

THE CHURCH APART 137

In the introduction he expresses his conviction that true
Christianity, the right belief such as he desiderated, had taken
up its abode with them. For had they not made known their
willingness to enforce strict discipline at Leisnig ? " By God's
grace," he tells them, " you are yourselves enriched by God,"
hence you have " no need of my small powers." Still, he was
far from loath to draw up for them and for others, too, first the
writing which appeared in print in 1523 (possibly at the beginning
of March), "Von Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne,"1
and then, about Easter, 1523, another booklet destined to become
particularly famous and to which we have already frequently
referred, " Das eyn Christliche Versamlung odder Gemeyne
Recht und Macht habe, alle Lere zu urteylen," etc.2

In the first, speaking of public worship "to real, heartfelt, holy
Christians," he says the model must surely be sought in the
" apostolic age " ; at least the clergy and the scholars, if not the
whole congregation, were to assemble daily, and on Sundays all
were to meet ; then follow his counsels — he took care to lay down
no actual rules — for the details of public worship, where the
Word and the awakening of faith were to be the chief thing.
These matters the congregation were to arrange on their own
authority.

The second booklet lays it down that it is the congregation and
not the bishops, the learned or the councils who have the right
and duty of judging of the preacher and of choosing a true
preacher to replace him who does not proclaim the Word of God
aright — needless to say, regardless of the rights of church
patronage. A minority of true " Christians " is at liberty to
reject the parish priest and appoint a new one of the right kind,
whom it then becomes their duty to support. Even " the best
preachers " might not be appointed by the bishops or patrons
" without the consent, choice and call of the congregation. "-
There can be no doubt, that, if every congregation acted as was
here proposed, this would have spelt the doom of the old church
system. This too was what Luther's vivid fancy anticipated
from the power of that Word which never returns empty-handed,
though he preferred simply to ignore the huge inner difficulties
which the proposal involved. The tidings that new congregations
and town-councils were joining his cause strengthened him in his
belief. His statements then, concerning the near overthrow of
the Papacy by the mere breath of Christ's mouth, are in part to
be explained by this frame of mind.

At Leisnig, however, events did not in the least justify his
sanguine expectations.

The citizens succeeded in making an end of their irksome
dependence on the neighbouring Cistercian monastery, and

1 /&., p. 35ff=153ff.

2 76., 11, p. 408 ff.= 22, p. 141 ff. " Ordenug eyns gemeynen
Kastens," 1523. On the date cp. Drews, p. 43.

138 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the town-council promptly sequestrated all the belongings
and foundations of the Church ; it then became apparent,
however, that, particularly on the side of the council,
the prevalent feeling was anything but evangelical ; the
councillors, for instance, refused to co-operate in the
establishment of a common poor-box or to apply to this
object the endowments it had appropriated. Grave dis
sensions soon ensued and Luther sought in vain the assist
ance of the Elector. Of any further progress of the new
religious-community ideal we hear nothing. The fact is,
the fate at Leisnig of the model congregation and " common
fund " scheme was a great disappointment to Luther.
Elsewhere, too, attempts at establishing a common poor-
box were no less unsuccessful. Of these, however, we shall
treat later.1

Luther's next detailed statements concerning the
" assembly of true Christians " are met in 1525. Towards
the end of that year Caspar Schwenckfeld, a representative
of the innovations in Silesia, visited him, and various theo
logical discussions took place in the presence of Bugenhagen
and Jonas,2 of which Schwenckfeld took notes which have
come down to us.3 With the help of what Luther said
then, supplemented by some later explanations, the history
of the remarkable plan can be followed further.

In the discussion then held with Schwenckfeld the latter
voiced his conviction, that true Christians must be separated
from the false, " otherwise there was no hope " of improvement ;
excommunication, too, must " ever go hand in hand with the
Gospel," otherwise " the longer matters went on the worse they
would get, for it was easy to see the trend throughout the world ;
every man wanted to be Evangelical and to boast of the name of
Christ. To this he [Luther] replied : it was very painful to him
that no one showed any sign of amendment " ; he had, however,
already taken steps concerning the separation of the true be
lievers and had announced " publicly in his sermons " his inten
tion of keeping a "register of Christians " and of having a watch
set over their conduct, also " of preaching to them in the mon
astery " while a " curate preached to the others in the parish."4

1 See below, vol. vi., xxxv., 4. 2 Above, p. 78 ff.

3 " Schwenckfelds Epistolar," 2, 2, 1570, p. 39 fi. Cp. K. Ecke,
" Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen Refor
mation," 1911, p. 101, where the words of the Epistolar, pp. 24 and 39,
are given, showing that Schwenckfeld " noted down the whole affair
from beginning to end at the inn while it was still fresh in his memory."

4 Of these steps and the sermon nothing is known.

THE CHURCH APART 139

It was a disgrace, remarked Luther, how, without such helps,
everything went to rack and ruin. Not even half a gulden had
he been able to obtain for the poor.

Concerning the ban, however, "he refused to give a reply"
even when repeatedly pressed by Schwenckfeld ; he merely
said : " Yes, dear Caspar, true Christians are not yet so plentiful ;
I should even be glad to see two of them together ; for I do not
feel even myself to be one." And there the matter rested.1

Hence, even then, he still had a quite definite intention of
forming such a congregation of true believers at Wittenberg.2

During the last months of 1525 Luther concluded a writing
entitled " Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts," which
was published in 1526, in which he speaks at length of the strange
scheme which was ever before his mind. Its reaction on his
plans for Mass and Divine worship may here be passed over.3
What more nearly concerns us now is the distinction he makes
between those present at Divine worship. If the new Mass, so
he says, " is held publicly in the churches before all the people "
many are present " who as yet neither believe nor are Christians."
In the popular Church, such as it yet is, " there is no ordered or
clearly cut assembly where the Christians can be ruled in accord
ance with the Gospel " ; to them worship is merely " a public
incentive to faith and Christianity." It would be a different
matter if we had the true Christians assembled together, " with
their names registered and meeting together in some house or
other," where prayer, reading, and the receiving of the Sacrament
would be assiduously practised, general almsgiving imposed and
" penalties, correction, expulsion or the ban made use of accord
ing to the law of Christ." But here again we find him complaining :
" I have not yet the necessary number of people for this, nor do
I see many who are desirous of trying it." " Hence until Chris
tians take the Word seriously, find their own legs and persevere,"
the carrying out of the plan must be delayed. Nor did he wish,
so he says, to set up " anything new in Christendom." As he put
it in a previous sermon: "It is perfectly true that I am certain
I have and preach the Word, and am called ; yet I hesitate to
lay down any rules."4

This hesitation cannot be explained merely by the
anxiety to which he himself refers incidentally lest com
mands should arouse the spirit of opposition and give rise
to "factions,"5 for the absence of authority was evident ;

1 " Epistolar," ib., pp. 39, 43.
" Zeitschr. f. KG.," 13, p. 552 ff.

3 See below, xxix., 9. The writing is reprinted in " Werke," Weini.
ed., 19, p. 70 ff. ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

4 Sermon of Dec. 6, 1523, ib., Weim. ed., 11, p. 210.

5 In the " Deudsche Messe," Weim. ed., 19, p. 75 ; Erl. ed., 22,
p. 231 : "In order that no faction may arise as though I had done it
of my own initiative."

140 LUTHER THE REFORMER

it must also have sprung from the author's own sense of the
indefiniteness of the plan. His pious wish to establish an
organisation on the apostolic model was not conspicuous
for practical insight, however great the stress Luther laid
on the passages he regarded as authoritative (2 Cor. ix.,
1 Cor. xiv., Mt. xviii. 2, and Acts vi.). " This much is
clear," rightly remarks Drews, " that Luther was uncertain
and wavered in the details of his plan. He had but little
bent to sketch out organisations even in his head ; to this
he did not feel himself called."1

Others, not alone from the ranks of such as inclined to
fanatism, were also to some extent to blame for the per
sistence with which he continued to revert to this pet idea.
Nicholas Hausmann, pastor of Zwickau, and an intimate
friend, approached him at the end of 1526 on the subject
of the ban, which he regarded as indispensable for the cause
of order. On Jan. 10, 1527, Luther replied, referring him to
the Visitation which the Elector had promised to have held.
" When the Churches have been constituted (' constitutis
ecclesiis ') by it, then we shall be able to try excommunica
tion. What can you hope to effect so long as everything is
in such disorder ? "2

Here we reach a fresh stage in the efforts to establish
a new system of Church organisation. Luther waited in
vain for the birth of the ideal community. Everything
remained " in disorder."3 The intervention of the State
introduced in the Visitation was, however, soon to establish
an organisation and thus to improve discipline.

The Church Apart replaced by the Popular Church
Supported by the State

Luther hoped much from the Visitation of 1527 ; it was not
merely to constitute parishes but also to serve the cause of the
" assembly of Christians " and of discipline ; the segregation
of the true believers was to be effected within the parishes, at least

1 " Entsprach des Staatskirchentum dem Ideale Luthers ? " p. 65.
Drews adds : " He was afraid of doing something contrary to God's
will." That Luther had not thought out the matter plainly is also
stated by K. Miiller (" Luther und Karlstad t," p. 121).

2 " Briefwechsel," 6, p. 10.

3 As late as June 26, 1533 (" Briefwechsel," 9, p. 317), he wrote :
" In hoc sceculo tarn turbido et nondum satis pro recipienda discipline
idoneo non ausim consulere tarn subitam innovationem." Cp. p. 142,
below.

THE CHURCH APART 141

when the parishes were not prepared to go over as a whole to the
true Church, as, for instance, Leisnig had once promised to do.
Luther again wrote, on March 29, 1527, to Hausmann, the
zealous Zwickau Evangelical : " We hope that it [the 'assembly
of Christians '] will come about through the Visitation." Then,
he fancies, " Christians and non-Christians would no longer be
found side by side " as at the ordinary gatherings in church ; but,
once they were " separated and formed an assembly where it was
the custom to admonish, reprove and punish," church discipline
could soon be applied to individuals too.1

But the " hope " remained a mere hope even when the Visita
tion was over.

Nothing whatever is known of any further attempt of Luther
in this direction, though, as Drews points out, " it is evident that
he was unable to understand how Christians who had reached the
faith could fail to feel themselves impelled to assemble in com
munities organised on the Apostolic model."2 He had to look
on helplessly while the followers of the new preaching formed
a great congregation, of which many of the members were, as he
had said, " not Christians at all," and whose prayer-gatherings
were no more than " an incentive to faith and Christianity."
(Above, p. 139.)

In Hesse alone had steps been taken — independently of the
Visitation in the Saxon Electorate and previous to it — to bring
about a condition of things more in accordance with Luther's ideal.
Moreover, Luther himself preferred to remain entirely neutral in
respect of this novel attempt, destined to become famous in the
history of Protestant church-organisation. The prime mover in
the Hessian plan was the preacher, Lambert of Avignon, an
apostate Friar Minor ; his draft was submitted to Landgrave
Philip by a Synod held at Homberg at the end of 1526. 3 Philip
forwarded it to Luther in order to hear his opinion. Among the
proposals made in the draft were the following : After preaching
for a while to the whole of the people, they were to be asked
individually whether they wished to join the assembly of true
believers and submit themselves to the discipline prevailing
amongst them ; those, however few in number, who give in their
names are the Christians ; as for the others they must be looked
upon as pagans ; the former have their meetings and choose
their pastors because it is the duty of the flock to decide in what
voice the shepherds shall speak. All the clergy were annually to
meet the delegates of the congregations, nobles and princes in
synod and to elect a committee and three Visitors for the direction
and supervision of the whole Church of the land ; these were also
to ratify the election of all the clergy chosen by the people. 4

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 53 (" Brief wechsel," 6, p. 32), p. 399.

2 P. 67.

3 The plan as Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 47 f., rightly points out had
been formed " mainly on elements previously brought forward by
Luther."

4 Reprinted in A. L. Richter, " Die evang. Kirchenordnungen des
16. Jahrh.," 1, 1846, p. 56.

142 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Luther advised the Landgrave " not as yet to allow this order
to appear in print, for I," he adds, " dare not yet be so bold as to
introduce so great a number of laws amongst us and with such
high-sounding words." He did not, however, by any means
reject the plan absolutely. On the contrary he writes, that, in
his opinion, it were better to allow the project to grow up gradu
ally " from force of habit " ; a few of the pastors, " say one,
three, six, or nine " might well make a beginning ; otherwise
they were sure to find that " the people were not yet ripe for it,"
and that " much would have to be altered."1

As Landgrave Philip, after receiving from Luther this rather
discouraging reply, proceeded no further, the " plan for the
realisation of Luther's ideas " was carried stillborn to the grave.2
" And yet it was the only practical plan which at all corresponded
with the theories of the Reformer prior to 1525. "3 Later on
Philip adopted the Saxon Reformation-book for the organising
of the Church of Hesse.

That the project of esoteric congregations of true believers
still survived in Luther's mind long after, in spite of the
consolidation of the popular Church in the form of a State
Church, is plain from a letter of his on June 26, 1533, to
Tilemann Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy (" episcopi
Hassice"), again sitting in assembly at Homberg. Schnabel
was a whilom Provincial of the Saxon Augustinians and
had taken part in the abortive attempt to establish a
community of true Christians at Leisnig of which he was
pastor. Finally, want, misery and his own instability of
character drove him from the country.4 From 1526
onwards he had been living at Alsfeld in Hesse. The new
assembly at Homberg had submitted to Luther, for his
approval, the draft of a scheme of church discipline, most
probably inspired by Schnabel himself. Luther's reply is
of the utmost importance for the understanding of his
opinion of the conditions then prevailing in the Church.5

He is, at bottom, quite at one with the Hessian preachers,
but, on practical grounds, chiefly on account of the lack of
the " veri Christiani" he rejects the well-meant proposals
as too far-reaching and incapable of execution.

1 Jan. 7, 1527. " Werke," Erl. ed., 56, p. 170 (" Brief wechsel," 6,

P- 9).

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 48.

3 F. Feuchtwanger : " Gesch. der sozialen Politik . . . irn Zeitalter
der Reformation " (" Schmollers Jahrb. f. Gesetzgebung N.F.," 33,
1909), p. 193.

* Cp. Enders, " Luthers Brief wechsel," 5, p. 73 n.

5 June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, " Brief wechsel," 9, p, 316.

THE CHURCH APART 143

The time, according to him, " is not yet ripe for the intro
duction of discipline." " Verily one must let the peasants
run riot a little . . . and then things will right themselves."
We have not as yet taken root in the earth ; when the
branches and leaves shall have appeared, then we shall be
better able to oppose the mighty. The Hessian preachers,
so he tells them, instead of rushing in with the Greater
Excommunication involving such serious civil consequences,
would do better to begin with the so-called " Lesser Ex
communication " in use at Wittenberg, simply excluding the
unworthy from Communion and from the right to stand as
sponsors ; for " the Greater Excommunication does not
come within our jurisdiction (' quod non sit nostri iuris '),
and, moreover, concerns only those who desire to be real
Christians ; nor are we in these times in a position to make
use of the Greater Excommunication ; it would merely
make us look silly were we to attempt it before we have the
necessary power. You seem to hope that the Prince will
take the enforcing of it into his own hands ; but this is
very uncertain, and it is better he should have nothing to
do with it."

Thus, though Luther did not believe in the feasibility of
a community of real Christians there and then, or that it
was likely soon to be realised, yet the idea had not quitted
his mind. The great mass of those belonging to his party
meanwhile constituted a sort of popular Church. But such
a popular Church was not in Luther's eyes the real institu
tion intended by the Gospel. It consisted of the masses
" who must first be left their own way for a while " before
the Church can be established. Drews justly observes of
the above statement : " Luther did not relinquish the ideal
of a really Christian congregation because he had come to
see that it was mistaken, the ideal had simply lost its
practical value in his eyes because it now seemed impossible
of realisation. Luther resigned himself to take things as
they were. As he had always regarded it as his mission, not
to organise, but merely to preach the Evangel, he was easily
able to console himself. At any rate it would be quite wrong
to say that the popular Churches which now grew up at all
corresponded with his ideal."1

The popular Church throve, nevertheless, and, soon,

i Ib., p. 68.

144 LUTHER THE REFORMER

owing to the co-operation of numerous factors, became a
State institution.

The result was the Lutheran State-Church, to be con
sidered later in another connection, was something widely
different from the original idea of its founder ; he frequently
grumbled about it, without, however, being able to check
its development, which, indeed, he himself had been the
first to urge.1 The sovereigns on their side, particularly the
Saxon Elector in the very birthplace of the innovations,
did their best to make ecclesiastical order, so far as externals,
its organisation and control went, depend upon themselves.2

The Visitation of 1527, for which Luther himself had
asked, furnished the Elector Johann with a welcome pretext
for such action.

Even when giving his formal consent to the Visitation
the Elector says, speaking of the " erection of parishes " :
" We have considered and weighed the matter and have
come to the conclusion that it becomes us as ruler of the
land to see to the business."3 Luther, moreover, for the
sake of securing some order in the new Church by the only
means at his command, outdid himself in assurances to the
Elector, that, he, being the principal member of the Church,
must take in hand the adjusting of the parishes and the
appointment of suitable clergy ; that his very love of his
country obliged him to this, and, that, owing to the pressing
needs of the time, he was a sort of " makeshift bishop " of
the Church. This last title is significant of the reserve
Luther still maintained ; he was loath to see the Church's
authority simply merged in that of the State ; he did,
nevertheless, speak of the sovereign as the head of the new
congregations and, little by little, allowed him so large
a share in their government that, even in his own day, the
secular sovereign was to all intents and purposes supreme
head of the episcopate.4

1 Below, xxxv., 2.

2 To what extent the Elector was following the example of his
Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, " Entste-
hung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen " (" N.
Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung "),
24, 2.

3 To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, " Brief wechsel," 5, p. 408.

4 Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther's
attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual
was Luther's reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl

WORSHIP AND RITUAL 145

9. Public Worship. Questions of Ritual

The ordering of public worship, particularly at Witten
berg, was a source of much anxiety to Luther. He was not
blind to the difficulties which his reformation had to face in
this department.

The soul of every religion must be sought in its public
worship. Hence, in Catholicism, the bishops, from earliest
times, had bestowed the most diligent and pious care on
worship. A proof of this is to be found in the grand liturgies
of antiquity and the prayers, lessons and outward rites with
which they so lovingly surround the eucharistic sacrifice.

To build up a new liturgy from the very foundation was
far from Luther's thoughts. He was not the " creator "
of any new form of public worship. He preferred to make
the best of the Roman Mass, for one reason, as he so often
insists, because of the weak, i.e. so as not needlessly to
alienate the people from the new Church by the introduction
of novelties.1 From the ancient rite he merely eliminated
all that had reference to the sacrificial character of the Mass,
the Canon, for instance, and the preceding Offertory.
He also thought it best to retain the word " Mass " in both
the writings in which he embodied his adaptation : "Formula
missce et communionis pro ecclesia Wittenbergensi " 1523,2
and " Deudsche Messe und Ordnung Gottis Diensts " 1526. 3

By the introduction of the German Mass in the latter
year " the whole Pope was flung out of the Church,"4 to use
Spalatin's words. It is noteworthy that Luther, in announc
ing this latest innovation to the inhabitants of Wittenberg,
admitted that he had been urged by the sovereign to make
the change.5

(above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59) : " These exertions on Luther's
part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once
the Visitation had been made in the Elector's name, then, in spite of
all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom
the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly
difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between
the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler
to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on
the same lines." Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.

1 Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ; " Opp. lat. var.," 7, p. 2 sqq.

3 /&., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff. ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.

4 To V. Warnbeck, Sep. 30, 1525, see Schlegel, " Vita Spalatini,"
p 222. Cp. Jonas to Spalatin, Sep. 23, 1525, vol. iv., p. 511.

6 " Since so many from all lands request me to do so, and the secular

V. — L

146 LUTHER THE REFORMER

In Luther's " German Mass," as in his even more traditional
Latin one, we find at the beginning the Introit, Kyrie Eleison,
Gloria and a Collect ; then follows the Epistle for the Sunday
together with a Gradual or Alleluia or both ; then the Gospel
and the Credo, followed by the sermon. " After the sermon the
Our Father is to be publicly explained and an exhortation given
to those intending to approach the Sacrament,"1 then comes the
Consecration. The Secret was omitted with the Offertory. The
Preface was shortened. Of the whole of the hated " Canon "2 the
" priest " was merely to pronounce aloud over the Bread and
Wine the words of consecration as given in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25,
saying then the Sanctus and Benedictus. The Elevation came
during the Benedictus.3 The Our Father and the Pax follow,
then the communion of the officiating clergyman and the faithful,
under both kinds. To conclude there was another collect and
then the blessing.

Some of the portions mentioned were sung by the congregation
and great use was made of German hymns. 4 Whatever had been
retained in Latin till 1526 was after that date put into German.
For the sake of the scholars who had to learn Latin Luther would
have been in favour of continuing to say the Mass in that language.
The old ecclesiastical order of the excerpts of the Epistles and
Gospels read in church was retained, though the selection was not
to Luther's tastes ; it seemed to him that the passages in Holy
Scripture which taught saving faith were not sufficiently to the
fore ; he was convinced that the man who originally made the
selection was an ignorant and superstitious admirer of works ;6
his advice was that the deficiency should at any rate be made
good by the sermon. The celebration of Saints' days was
abolished, saving the feasts of the Apostles and a few others,
and of the feasts of the Virgin Mary only those were retained
which bore on some mystery of Our Lord's life. In addition to
the Sunday service short daily services were introduced consisting
of the reading and expounding of Holy Scripture ; these were to
be attended at least by the scholars and those preparing themselves
for the preaching office. At these services Communion was not to
be dispensed as a general rule but only to those who needed it.

power also urges me to it." " Werke," Weim. ed., 19, p. 50 f. ; Erl.
ed., 142, p. 278, from the Church-postils. Cp. G. Rietschel, " Lehrb.
der Liturgik," Berlin, 1900, p. 278.

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 19, p. 95 ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 239.

2 For Luther's writing : " Von dem Grewel der Stillmesse so man den
Canon nennet," see above, vol. iv., p. 511 f.

3 For the fate of this see our vol. iii., p. 392 f., vol. iv., p. 195, n. 4,
p. 239, and Kawerau, in Holler, " KG," 33, p. 401.

4 See below, xxxiv., 4.

5 Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 532. He also repeatedly complains th'at
the hymns and prayers of antiquity failed to make sufficient mention
of the Redemption and the Grace of Christ. Even in the " Te Deum "
he misses the doctrine of Redemption, needless to say in tho sense in
which he taught it. " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 425.

WORSHIP AND RITUAL 147

Alb and chasuble continued to be worn by the clergyman
at the " Mass " in the parish church of Wittenberg, though
no longer in the monastic church. The Swiss who visited
Wittenberg were struck by this, and, in their reports,
declared that Luther's service was still half Popish. At
Augsburg where Zwinglianism was rampant the " puppet
show " of the Saxons, with their priestly vestments, candles,
etc., seemed a " foolish " and scandalous thing.1 Luther
wished the use of lights and incense to be neither enjoined
nor abolished.

As he frequently declared, the utmost freedom was to
prevail in matters of ritual in order to avoid a relapse into
the Popish practice of man-made ordinances. Even the
adoption of the " Deudsche Messe, etc.," was to be left to
the decision of the congregations and the pastors.2 If they
knew of anything better to set up in its place, this was not
to be excluded ; yet in every parish-congregation there must
at least be uniformity. The chief thing is charity, edifica
tion and regard for the weak. Above all, the " Word must
have free course and not be allowed to degenerate into
singing and shouting, as was formerly the case."3

Of the whole of the Wittenberg liturgical service, he says
in his " Deudsche Messe " — to the surprise of his readers
who expected to find in it a work for the believers— that
it did not concern true believers at all : " In short we do
not set up such a service for those who are already Chris
tians."4 He is thinking, of course, of the earnest, convinced
Christians whom, as stated above (p. 133 f.), he had long
planned to assemble in special congregations. They alone
in his eyes constituted the true Church, however imperfect
and sinful they might be, provided they displayed faith and
goodwill.

" They " (the true believers), he here says of his regulations,
" need none of these things, for which indeed we do not live, but
rather they for the sake of us who are not yet Christians, in
order that we may become Christian ; true believers have their
service in the spirit."5 In the case of the particular assemblies
he had in mind for the latter, they would have to "enter their
names and meet in some house or other for prayer, reading,

1 W. Germann, " Joliann Forster " (" N. Beitr. zur Gesch. deutschen
Altertums," Hft. 12), 1894.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 19, p. 72 ; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227.

3 Ib., 12, p. 37 = 22, p. 156. 4 Ib., 19, p. 73-22, p. 228. 3 Ib.

148 LUTHER THE REFORMER

baptism, receiving of the Sacrament and other Christian works."
" Here there would be no need of loud or fine singing. They
could descant a while on baptism and the Sacrament, and direct
everything towards the Word and prayer and charity. All they
would need would be a good, short catechism on faith, the Ten
Commandments and the Our Father." Amongst them ecclesi
astical discipline and particularly excommunication would be
introduced ; such assemblies would also be well suited for
" common almsgiving," all the members helping in replenishing
the poor-box.1

Until such " congregations apart " had come into being the
service, and particularly the sermon, according to Luther, must
needs be addressed to all. " Such a service there must be for the
sake of those who are yet to become Christians, or need strengthen
ing . . . especially for the sake of the simple-minded and young
... on their account we must read, sing and preach . . . and,
where this helps at all, I would have all the bells rung and all
the organs played." He boasts of having been the first to impart
to public worship this aim and character, "to exercise the young
and to call and incite others to the faith " ; the " popish services,"
on the other hand, were " so reprehensible " because of the
absence of any such character. — In his Churches he sees " many
who do not yet believe and are no Christians ; the greater part
stand there gaping at the sight of something new, just as though
we were holding an open-air service among the Turks or
heathen." Hence it seems to him quite necessary to regard the
worship in common as simply a public encouragement to faith
and Christianity.2

As for those Christians who already believed, Luther cannot
loudly enough assert their freedom.

As his highest principle he sets up the following, which
in reality is subversive of all liturgy : In Divine worship
" it is a matter for each one's conscience to decide how he
is to make use of such freedom [the freedom of the Christian
man given by the Evangel] ; the right to use it is not to be
refused or denied to any. . . . Our conscience is in no way
bound before God by this outward order."3 This has the
true Lutheran ring. Beside this must be placed his fre
quently repeated assertion, that we can give God nothing
that tends to His honour, and that every effort on our
part to give Him anything is merely an attempt to make
something of man and his works, which works are invariably
sinful.4 He also teaches elsewhere that not only does real
and true worship consist in a life of faith and love, but that

1 Ib., p. 75 = 230 f. 2 Ib., 74 ff. = 229 ff.

3 16., p. 72 = 228. 4 Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.

WORSHIP AND RITUAL 149

the outward worship given in common is in reality a sacri
fice of praise and thanksgiving (a gift to God after all)
made in common solely because of all people's need to ex
press their faith and love;1 he also calls it a " sacrificium,"
naturally, not in the Catholic, but in the widest sense of the
word. Even the expression " eucharistic sacrifice," i.e.
sacrifice of praise, is not inacceptable to him ; but at least
the sacrifice must be entirely free.

With such a view the form of worship described above
seems scarcely to tally. A well-defined outward order of
worship was first proposed, and then prescribed ; it would,
according to Luther's statement, have imposed itself even
on the assemblies of true believers. It is true, he says, that
only considerations of charity and public order compel such
outward regulations, that it was not his doing nor that of
any other evangelical authority. Still it is a fact that they
were enjoined, that a service according to the choice of the
individual was, even in Luther's day, regarded with mis
givings, and that even in the 16th century it fell to the
secular prince to sanction the form of worship in church
and to punish those who stayed away, those who failed to
communicate and those who did not know their catechism.2
We have here another instance of the same contradiction
apparent in matters of dogma, where Luther bound down
the free religious convictions of the individual — supposed
to be based on conscience and the Bible — in cast-iron strands
in his catechism and theological hymns. The catechism,
even in the matter of confession, and likewise the theology
of the hymns, closely trenched on the regulations for Divine
worship. The Ten Commandments, the Our Father, etc.,
were also put into verse and song. Moreover, those who
presented themselves for communion had to submit at least
to a formal examination into their faith and intentions,
and also to a certain scrutiny of their morals — a strange
limitation surely of Evangelical freedom and of the universal
priesthood of all believers.

According to Kawerau, the best Protestant liturgical
writers agree, that a " false, pedagogic conception of wor-

1 Cp. above, p. 45, and " Werke," Erl. ed., 142, p. 87.

2 On Luther's attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to
Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), " Brief e," ed. De
Wette, 4, p. 308 (" Brief wechsel," 9, p. 103).

150 LUTHER THE REFORMER

ship " finds expression in Luther's form of service.1 To
make the aim of the public worship of the congregation —
whatever elements the latter might comprise — a mere
exercise for the young and a method of pressing " Chris
tianity " on non-believers was in reality to drag down the
sublime worship of God, the " sacrifice of praise and thanks
giving " as Luther himself sometimes calls it, to an un
deservedly low level.

This degradation was, however, intimately bound up with
the fact, that Luther had robbed worship of its most precious
and essential portion, the eucharistic sacrifice, which, ac
cording to the Prophet Malachias, was to be offered to
the Lord from the rising till the going down of the sun as
a pure and acceptable oblation. To the Catholic observer
his service of the Mass, owing to the absence of this all-
important liturgical centre, appears like a blank ruin.
As early as 1524 he was told at Wittenberg that his service
was "dreary and all too sober." Although it was his
opposition to the Holy Sacrifice and its ceremonies which
called forth this stricture, yet at the same time his objection
to any veneration of the Saints also contributed to the
lifeless character of the new worship. It was, however,
above all, the omission of the sacrifice which rendered
Luther's clinging to the ancient service of the Mass so
unwarrantable. 2

Older Protestant liturgical writers like Kliefoth spoke of
the profound, mystical value of Luther's liturgy and even

1 Kawerau in the "Gottinger Gelehrte Anzeigen," 1888, 1, p. 113 f.,
in his review of Joh. Gottschick, " Luthers Anschauungen vom christl.
Gottesdienst," Freiburg, 1887 : "In practice Luther helped to further
a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted neverthe
less a questionable concession to the needs of the moment ; for he
vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it
to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real
Christians of them." Kawerau speaks of this as "an object which, on
every side, spells serious injury to worship itself." Gottschick had
proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that " such a conception of worship was
on every point at variance with Luther's own principles concerning
the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer
to faith." In this view Gottschick would find himself " in complete
harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day."

2 J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1 ), in concluding, charges Luther's reform
of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman
Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great
consideration for the weak ; this form of worship, utterly at variance
with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real
Lutheran liturgy.

WORSHIP AND RITUAL 151

of certain elements as being quite original. Recourse to
the old scheme of the Mass, duly expurgated, was, how
ever, a much simpler process than they imagined. We
must also bear in mind, that Luther himself was not so
rigid in restricting the liturgy to the forms he himself had
sketched out as they assumed. On the contrary, he left
room for development, and allowed the claims of freedom.
Hence it is not correct to say, that he curtailed the tendency
towards " free liturgical development," as has been asserted
of him by Protestants in modern times.1 For it was no mere
pretence on his part when he spoke of freedom to improve.
The progress made in hymnology owing to this freedom is
a proof that better results were actually arrived at.

How easy it was, on the other hand, for liberty to lead to
serious abuses is plain from the history of the Evangelical churches
in Livonia. Melchior Hofmarm, the preacher, had come from
that country to Wittenberg complaining that the reformed service
had given rise to the worst discord among both people and clergy.
Luther composed a circular letter addressed to the inhabitants of
Livonia, entitled " Eyne christliche Vormanung von eusser-
lichem Gottis Dienste unde Eyntracht an die yn Lieffland," which
was printed together with a letter from Bugenhagen and another
from Hofmann.2 Therein he admits with praiseworthy frank
ness his embarrassment with regard to ceremonial uniformity.

" As soon as a particular form is chosen and set up," he says,
" people fall upon it and make it binding, contrary to the freedom
brought by faith." "But if nothing be set up or appointed, the
result is as many factions as there are heads. . . . One must,
however, give the best advice one can, albeit everything is not at
once carried out as we speak and teach." He accordingly
encourages those whom he is addressing to meet together
amicably " in order that the devil may not slink in unawares,
owing to this outward quarrel about ceremonies." " Come to
some agreement as to how you wish these external matters
arranged, that harmony and uniformity may prevail among you
in your region," otherwise the people would grow " confused and
discontented." Beyond such general exhortations he does not
go and thus refuses to face the real difficulty.

When seeking to introduce uniformity nothing was to be
imposed as " absolute command," but merely to " ensure the
unity of the Christian people in such external matters " ; in other
words, " because you see that the weak need and desire it." The

1 Cp. Kawerau's quotations in his article in the " Gdttinger Gel.
Anzeigen," 1888, 1, p. 115.

2 June 17, 1525, " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 412 ff. ; Erl. ed., 53,
p. 315 ff. (" Brief wechsel," 5, p. 198). For Bugenhagen's letter see
" Brief wechsel," p. 207, for Hofmann's, ib., p. 213.

152 LUTHER THE REFORMER

people, however, were " to inure themselves to the breaking out
of factions and dissensions. For who is able to ward off the
devil and his satellites ? " "When you were Papists the devil, of
course, left you in peace. . . . But now that you have the true
seed of the divine Word he cannot refrain from sowing his own
seed alongside."

The writing did no good, for the confusion continued. It was
only in 1528 that the Konigsberg preacher, Johann Briesmann, at
the request of the authorities and with Luther's help, established
a new form of church government in Livonia.

Were one to ask which was the principal point in Luther's
Mass, the Supper or the sermon, it would not be easy to
answer.

The term Mass and the adaptation of the olden ritual
would seem to speak in favour of the Supper.1 If, how
ever, the service was to consist principally of the celebration
of the Supper it was necessary there should always be com
municants. Without communions there was, according to
Luther, no celebration of the Sacrament. Now at Witten
berg there were not always communicants, nor was there
any prospect of the same presenting themselves at every
Sunday service, or that things wxmld always remain as in
1531 when Luther boasted, that " every Sunday the hun
dred or so communicants were always different people."2

At the weekly services, communion in any case was very
unusual. The custom had grown up under Luther's eyes
that, on Sundays, as soon as the sermon was over, the
greater part of the congregation left the church.3 From
this it is clear that the ritual involved a misunderstanding.
In practice the celebration of the Supper became something
merely supplementary, whereas, according to Luther him
self, it ought to have constituted either the culmination of
the service, or at least an organic part of Divine worship ;
under him, however, it was soon put on the same level with
the sermon though the organic connection between the
two is not clear. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say

1 Kawerau, in Holler, " KG.," 33, p. 400 ; " The influence of the
Catholic past is still evident in the fact, that, in spite of the predominant
position assigned to preaching, the view still prevailed that Divine
worship, in order to be complete, must include the Supper, and
that it culminated in this ' office.' This, even in the 16th century,
gave rise to difficulties."

2 To Margrave George of Brandenburg in the letter quoted above,
p. 145, n. 2. 3 Kawerau, ib., p. 401.

WORSHIP AND RITUAL 153

that predominance was assigned to the sermon,1 which
undoubtedly was only right if, as Luther maintains, worship
was intended only for instruction.

In our own day some have gone so far as to demand
that the sermon should be completely sundered from the
Supper ; and also to admit, that the creation of a real
Lutheran liturgy constitutes " a problem still to be solved."2

It is a fact of great ethical importance, that, what was
according to Luther the Sacrament of His Real Presence
instituted by Christ Himself, had to make way for preaching
and edification by means of prayers and hymns. Even the
Elevation had to go. From the beginning its retention
had aroused " misgivings,"3 and, to say the least, Luther's
reason for insisting on it, viz. to defy Carlstadt who had
already abolished it, was but a poor one. It was abrogated
at Wittenberg only in 1542 ; elsewhere, too, it was discon
tinued.4 Thus the Sacrament receded into the background
as compared with other portions of the service. But, like
prayer and hymn-singing, preaching too is human and
subject to imperfections, whereas the Sacrament, even
though it be no sacrifice, is, even according to Luther, the
Body of Christ. Luther was, indeed, ready with an answer,
viz. that the sermon was also the Word of God, and, that,
by means of both Sacrament and sermon, God was working
for the strengthening of faith. Whether this reply gets rid
of the difficulty may here be left an open question. At any
rate the ideal Word of God could not be placed on the
same footing with the sermons as frequently delivered at
that time by expounders of the new faith, capable or other
wise, sermons, which, according to Luther's own loud com
plaints, contained anything but the rightful Word of God,
and were anything but worthy of being classed together
with the Sacrament as one of the two component parts of
Divine worship.

Three charges of a general character were made by Luther
against Catholic worship. First, " the Word of God had not been
preached . . . this was the worst abuse." Secondly, " many
unchristian fables and lies found their way into the legends,
hymns and sermons." Finally, " worship was performed as a

1 Ib., p. 400. Luther says : " Diligens verbi Dei prcedicatio est
proprius cultus novi testamenti." " Opp. lat. exeg.," 19, p. 161.

2 Gottschick. 3 This is Kawerau's opinion, ib., p. 401.
4 See above, p. 146, n. 3.

154 LUTHER THE REFORMER

work whereby to win salvation and God's grace ; and so faith
perished."1

Of these charges it is hard to say which is the most unjust.
His assertion that the Word of God had not been preached and
that there was 110 Bible-preaching, has been refuted anew by
every fresh work of research in the history of preaching at that
time. Nor was the Bible-element in preaching entirely lacking,
though it might not have been so conspicuous. The truth is,
that, in many places, sermons were extremely frequent.2

Luther's second assertion, viz. that Catholic worship was full
of lying legends, does not contain the faintest trace of truth, more
particularly there where he was most radical in his work of
expurgation, i.e. in the Canon. The Canon was a part of the
Mass-service, which had remained unaltered from the earliest
times. It was only into the sermons that legends had found their
way to a great extent.

If finally, as seems likely, Luther, by his third charge, viz. that
the olden Church sought to " win salvation and God's Grace "
through her worship, means that this was the sole or principal
aim of Catholic worship, here, too, he is at sea. The real object
had always been the adoration and thanksgiving which are God's
due, offered by means of the sublime sacrifice united with the
spiritual sacrifice of the whole congregation. Adoration and
thanksgiving found their expression above all in the sublime
Prefaces of the Mass. The thought already appears in the
" Sursum corda, Gratias agamus, etc., Dignum et iustum est,"
whereupon the priest, taking up again the " Dignum et iustum
est/' proceeds : " &quum et salutare, nos tibi semper et ubique
gratias agere . . . per Christum Dominum nostrum." It is not
without significance that " dignum," " iustum " and " cequum "
stand first, and that " salutare " comes after ; praise and thanks
giving are what it becomes us first of all to offer in presence of
God's Majesty, but they are also profitable to us because they
render God gracious to us.3

The ritual of the Catholic sacrifice, dating as it does from
the Church's remotest past, expresses adequately the
highest thoughts of Christian ethics, viz. the adoration of
the Creator by the creature through the God-man Christ,
Who alone worthily honours Him. To this idea Luther's
attempt at a liturgy does not do justice.

1 "Werke," Weim. ed., 12, p. 35; Erl. ed., 22, p. 153. "Von
Ordenung Gottes Dienst ynn der Gemeyne," 1523.

2 Of the most recent studies we need only mention here H. Greving,
" Ecks Pfarrbuch fiir U.L. Frau in Ingolstadt " (" RG1. Studien "), Hft.
4 and 5, 1908, p. 87 ff. Cp. Janssen, "Hist, of the German People "
(Engl. Trans.), vol. i., passim.

3 This introduction, together with the whole text of the common
Preface, enters into Luther's Latin Mass. " Werke," Weim. ed., 12,
p. 212 ; " Opp. lat. var.," 7, p. 8. In his German Mass it is suppressed.

SCHWENCKFELD ON LUTHER 155

10. Schwenckfeld as a Critic of the Ethical Results of
Luther's Life-work

Caspar Schwenckfeld, the Silesian nobleman (see above,
p. 78 ff.), is a type of those men who attached themselves to
Lutheranism with the utmost enthusiasm, but, who, owing
to the experience they met with and in pursuance of those
very principles which Luther himself had at first advocated,
came to strike out new paths of their own.

In spite of his pseudo-mystical schemes for the establish
ment of a Church on the Apostolic model ; in spite of his
abandonment of doctrines to which Luther clung as to
an heirloom of the ancient Church ; regardless of his
antagonism to Luther — which the latter repaid with relent
less persecution — this cultured fanatic expressed in his
numerous writings and letters his lasting gratitude to, and
respect for, Luther on account of the services which the
latter had in his opinion rendered in the restoration of
truth. He extols his " wonderful trumpet-call,"1 and
without any trace of hypocrisy, says : '' What Martin
Luther and others have done aright, for instance in the
expounding of Holy Scripture ... I trust I will, with
God's help, never underrate."2

At the same time, however, he is not slow to express it
as his conviction, that, " At the beginning of the present
Evangel the said [Lutheran] doctrine was far better, purer
and more wholesome than it is now."3 " Dr. Martin led us
out of Egypt, through the Red Sea and into the wilderness,
and there he left us to lose ourselves on the rough roads ;
yet he seeks to persuade everybody that we are already in
the Promised Land." This he said in 1528.4

" Although Luther has written much that is good,"
" that has been and still may be profitable to believers, for
which we give praise and thanks to God the Lord, still he
has also written much that is evil, and in the end it will
be proved that his and his people's doctrine or theologia was
neither apostolic, nor pure, nor perfect . . . which certainly
might have been seen long since by its fruits."5

1 "Epistolar," 2, 2, 1570. Ecke (see below, p. 156, n. 1), p. 159.

2 " Der erste Teil der christl. orthodox. Biicher und Schriften. . . .
Schwenckfelds . . . durch Mitbekenner zusammengetragen," 1564,
p. 4. Ecke, p. 160 ; cp. p. 10 f.

3 "Epistolar," ib., p. 228; cp. p. 246. 4 /&., p. 645. 5 /&., p. 519.

156 LUTHER THE REFORMER

His criticisms of Luther, which, in spite of his harsh treat
ment at the latter's hands, are throughout temperately
expressed and with a certain aristocratic reticence, deal
on the one hand with the fruits of the Wittenberg Reforma
tion, and, on the other, with certain main features of the
ethical teaching of his master and one-time friend ; his
strictures thus form a recapitulation of what has gone
before.

On the hoped-for Moral Revival

16 The reformation of life has not taken place," this is
what Carl Ecke, Schwenckfeld's latest biographer, repre
sents as the honest conviction of the " apostolic " preacher
of the faith in Silesia.1 " The religion of Lutheranism as it
then was did not, in Schwenckfeld's opinion, as a whole
reach the standard of Bible Christianity."2 " The greater
part of the common herd," says Schwenckfeld, " who are
called Lutherans do not know to-day how they stand,
whether with regard to works, or in relation to God and
to their own conscience."3

Schwenckfeld's own standard was certainly somewhat
one-sided and his own Apostolic Church, so far as it ever
saw the light, fell considerably short of the ideal. His
insight into the ethical conditions and doctrines was, how
ever, keen enough and his judgment was at least far calmer
and clearer than that of Carlstadt and Luther's other more
hot-headed antagonists. He was also able to base his
definite and oft-repeated statements on the experience he
had gained during his wide travels and in intercourse with
all sorts of men.

Thus he writes : " If by God's grace I see the great common
herd and the poor folk on both sides, as they really are, then I must
fain admit, that, under the Papacy and in spite of all its errors,
there are more pious, godfearing men than in Lutheranism. I also
believe that they might more easily be improved than some of
our Evangelicals who are now trying to hide themselves and
their sinful life behind Holy Scripture, nay, behind a fictitious

1 " Schwenckfeld, Luther und der Gedanke einer apostolischen
Ref.," Berlin, 1911, p. 161.

2 Ecke, p. 176. The Protestant author adds in a note : " It must,
however, be pointed out that this criticism does not affect the apostolic
nature of the profound phenomena of Evangelical piety seen among
Lutherans."

3 " Christl. Biicher," etc. (above, p. 155, n. 2), p. 384. Ecke, p. 177.

SCHWENCKFELD ON LUTHER 157

faith and Christ's satisfaction, and in whom no fear of God
is left."1

Many of Schwenckfeld's more specific complaints are supported
by other witnesses. We may compare what Luther himself and
his friends report of the conditions at Wittenberg2 with what
Schwenckfeld says a little later : " It is credibly asserted con
cerning their Church at Wittenberg, that there such a mad,
dissolute life prevails as is woeful to see ; there is no discipline
whatever, no fear of God, and the people are wild, impudent and
unmannerly, particularly Philip's students, so that even Dr.
Major not long since (1556) is himself said to have complained
of it there in a sermon, saying : Our Wittenberg is so widely
talked of that strangers fancy there are only angels here ; when,
however, they come they find only devils incarnate. If Philip,
who sends out his disciples as Apostles ' in omnem terram ' does
not found any better Churches than these, he has but little to
boast of before God."3

" What harm and damage to consciences such Lutheran
teaching has brought into Christendom it is easier to bewrail with
many tears than to describe." Though Luther's " Evangel and
office has discovered and made an end of much false worship and
a great apostasy, for which we give thanks to God the Lord," yet
" it has but little of the power of grace, of the Holy Spirit, or of
blessing, for bringing sinners to repentance and true conversion."4

" Thus we have Schwenckfeld's witness that he had seen
nothing of any real awakening or revival among the people
generally. Whole classes, the merchant class, for instance,
remained inwardly untouched by the glad tidings ; even where
the ' Word ' was preached, there the bad sermons, of which
Schwenckfeld had complained as early as 1524, often produced
evil fruits." Thus writes Ecke.5 Schwenckfeld, however, does
not lay all the blame on the preachers, but rather directly on the
ethical principles resulting from Luther's doctrines, which had
filled the utterances of the new preachers with so much that was
dangerous and misleading. " Oh, how many of our nobles have
I heard say: 'I cannot help it,' 'it is God's Will,' 'God does all,
even my sin, and I am not answerable ' ; 'if He has predestined
me I shall be saved.' ' " How many have I heard, who all
appealed to the Wittenberg writings, and, who, alas, to-day, are
ten times worse than before the Evangel began to be preached."6

Whenever he exhorted his Lutheran co-religionists to con
version and holiness of life, so he declares in 1543, he always
received some reply such as the following : " We are poor sinners
and can do nothing good." " Faith alone without works saves
us." " We cannot keep God's law " ; " have no free-will."
" Amendment is not in our power." " Christ has done enough

1 " Epistolar," ib., p. 602. In 1550. Ecke, p. 196.

2 See our vol. iv., p. 210ff., forinstance, and below, vol. vi.,xxxix., 1.

3 " Die ander Verantwortung," 1556, Aiii. Ecke, p. 190 f.

4 " Christl. Biicher," p. 326 f. Ecke, p. 163. 5 Ib.
6 " Epistolar," 1, 1566, p. 680. Ecke, p. 164.

158 LUTHER THE REFORMER

for us ; He has overthrown sin, death, hell and the devil ; that is
what we have to believe."1 When he preached sanctification he
was dubbed a " Papist." " That the Lutherans accuse me of
being more a Papist than a Lutheran is due mainly to good works
and the stress I lay on them."2

Even in 1524 he had published an essay on practical
ethics entitled, " An Exhortation regarding the misuse of
sundry Articles of the Evangel, etc." (Above, 79 f.) In
1547 he found it necessary to publish another work on the
" Misuse of the Evangel." To this misuse he attributes
most of the above excuses of his " Lutheran co-religionists."
Luther himself, so he declares here, was much to blame for
the confusion that prevailed. He quotes many passages
from Luther's Church-postils, from the edition printed at
Wittenberg in 1526 with prefaces by Luther and Stephen
Roth. He also makes use of the same work in another book,
" On Holy Scripture," which he also wrote in 1547.3 Many
of the incriminated passages were " wickedly omitted " in
the next editions of the Church-postils.4

Further Complaints of Schwenckf eld's. The Ethical
Doctrines

Schwenckfeld, in his strictures on Luther's preaching and
its results, deals with the ethical side of the new teaching
concerning the Law and the Gospel.

Luther had said, that, with the law, God " wished to do
110 more than make us feel our helplessness, our weakness
and our sickness."5 The critic asks: "Why not also to
make us eschew evil and do good, 1 Peter iii. ? " On the
other hand, Luther will have it that the " Law makes all of
us sinners so that not even the smallest tittle of these com
mandments can be kept even by the most holy." " Such
is in short Luther's doctrine concerning the Law and the
Commandments of God. There he lets it rest, as though
the ground and contents of the Law and God's intention
therein — which was centred on Christ — were nothing. . . .

1 " Christl. Biicher," p. 362. In 1547. Ecke, ib.

2 Ecke, p. 164, from a MS.

3 " Christl. Biicher," p. 477. Ecke, p. 164.

4 Thus G. Arnold, " Kirchenhistorie," Frankfurt a/M., 1729, 1,
p. 413.

5 Ib., p. 395. Ecke, p. 170 f., where he quotes in support of this
and what follows, " Luthers Werke," Erl. ed., 142, pp. 164 f., 174,

SCHWENCKFELD ON LUTHER 159

Of this doctrine, particularly, the common people can make
nothing save that God has given us His commandments,
not in order that we may keep them by means of His Grace,
but only that we may thereby come to the knowledge of

sin."3

" Why should we hate our life in this world . . . and
follow Christ ? Nay, why take pains at all to enter in at the
narrow gate and to seek the strait way to life everlasting
(Mt. vii.) if it is possible to reach heaven along the broad
way on which so many walk who are called Lutherans, and
to enter in through the wide gate which they make for
themselves ! "2

Two other points of doctrine which in the same connec
tion Schwenckfeld censures in the strongest terms as real
stumbling blocks in ethics, are the preaching of predestina
tion and the denial of free-will.

How, at the outset, the " learned had soared far too high "
with their article of predestination " and, by means of their
human wisdom, reached a philosophical, heathen conception
[presumably the ancient ' fatum '] can readily be seen from their
books, especially from Luther's against free-will and Melanch-
thon's first Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans."3

" Luther writes that no one is free to plan either good or evil,
but only does as he is obliged ; that, as God wills, so we live. . . .
Item, that the man who does evil has no control over himself,
that it is not in man's power to do evil or not, but that he is
forced to do it, ' nos coacti facimus.' ' " God," so Philip tells us,
" does all things by His own power."4

" They have treated of predestination in accordance with
heathen philosophy, forgetful of Christ and the Grace of the
Gospel now made manifest ; they wrote of it from a human
standpoint ; and though Luther and Philip, after they had seen
the evil results, would gladly have retracted it, yet because what
they had formerly taught was very pleasing to the flesh, it took
root in men's hearts so deeply that what they afterwards said
passed almost unheard."5

" This aberration," says Ecke, " was to Schwenckfeld a further
sign that their method of reformation was not that of good
missionaries." 6

Schwenckfeld complains rightly : " Instead of beginning, after
the Apostles' example, by preaching penance in the name of

1 Ib. 2 Ib., p. 325. Ecke, p. 172.

3 Ib., p. 377. Ecke, p. 168.

4 Ib., p. 420. Schwenckfeld's excuse is, however, worthy of note,
p. 401 : " Such doctrine is not the outcome of an evil mind but is due
to misapprehension." Ecke, p. 168.

5 Ib., p. 421. Ecke, p. 169. 6 Ib.

160 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Christ . . . they preferred vehemently to urge such lofty matters
as predestination and the Divine election together with the denial
of free- will."1

The universal priesthood as commonly preached and
understood by the people furnishes Schwenckfeld with a
further cause for grumbling. " They have also been in the
habit of preaching and shouting to the multitudes that
all of them were already Christians, children of God and
spiritual kings and princes. What corruption of conscience
and abuse of the Evangel has resulted from all this we see
and hear to-day from many . . . who thereby have fallen
into a bold and godless manner of life."'

Finally there was Luther's ethical attitude towards sin.
" Look at the second sermon for Easter Day in Luther's
Church-sermons [where he says] : 4 Where now is sin ? It
is nailed to the cross. ... If only I hold fast to this, I
shall have a good conscience of being, like Christ Himself,
without sin ; then I can defy death, devil, sin and hell.' '

Schwenckfeld continues : " And again : ' Seeing that Christ
allowed Himself to be put to death for sin, it cannot harm me.
Thus does faith work in the man who believes that Christ has
taken away sin ; such a one feels himself to be without sin like
Christ, and knows that death, devil and hell have been conquered
and cannot harm him any more.' Hcec ille. This has proved
a scandal to many."3

He is angered by what Luther says in his sermon for the 8th
Sunday after Trinity, that " no work can condemn a man, that
unbelief is the only sin, and that it was the comfort of Christians
to know that sins do not harm them. Item, that only sinners
belong to the Kingdom of God." — He is much shocked at such
sayings as, " If you but believe you are freed from sin. ... If we
believe then we have a Gracious God and only need to direct our
works to the advantage of our neighbour so that they may be
profitable to him."4

Such a form of neighbourly love does not suffice to reassure
Schwenckfeld as to the method of justification taught by Luther.
" We see here that repentance, the renewal of the heart and the
crucifixion of the flesh with its lusts and concupiscences, as well
as the Christian combat . . . are all forgotten." " How is it
possible that such easy indulgence and soft and honeyed sermons
should not lead to little account being made of sin, seeing the

1 Ib., p. 401. Ecke, ib. 2 Ib. Ecke, p. 170.

3 Ib,, p. 361. Ecke quotes " Luthers Werke," Erl. ed., II2, p. 217.

4 Ib., p. 365. Ecke, p. 166, quotes Erl. ed., 132, p. 218 ; 142, pp. 281 f .,

287 ft

SCHWENCKFELD ON LUTHER 161

people are told that God winks at the sins of all those who
believe ? "*•

Again and again he returns to the patent fact that " the result
of such shameless preaching and teaching is nothing but a grave
and damnable abuse of the Evangel of Jesus Christ, since people
now make but little account even of many and great sins."2

For Luther to point to the Crucified and tell the believer that
" sin is nothing but a devilish spectre and a mere fancy," was
to speak "fanatically." Luther might write what he pleased, but
here, at any rate, he was himself guilty of that fanatism of
which he was fond of accusing others.3 Schwenckfeld himself
had been numbered by the preachers among the crazy fanatics.

The Silesian also ruthlessly attacked the imputation of
the merits of Christ by means of the Sola Fides.

The Lutherans, even the best of them, imagine their righteous
ness to be nothing else " but the bare faith, since they believe
God accounts them righteous, even though they remain as they
were before." " They should, however^ be exhorted to search
Holy Scripture and to ask themselves in their hearts whether
such faith and righteousness are not rather a human persuasion,
mere imposition and self-delusion . . . which men invent to
justify an impenitent life ; not a true, living faith, the gift of the
Holy Ghost . . . which, as Scripture says, purifies the heart,
Acts xv. . . ., reconciles consciences, Rom. v. . . ., and brings
Christ into our hearts, Eph. iii., Gal. ii."4

An instructive parallel and at the same time a severe
censure on Luther's method of building up " faith " on in
ward assurance is afforded by Schwenckfeld's account of the
experiences and spiritual trials on which he himself had
founded his faith. The preachers, insisting on the outward
Word, urged that he had no right to appeal to his mere
feelings ; yet, as he points out, this very thing had been
proclaimed from Wittenberg as the right, nay the duty
of all.

" In addition to all this they reject the ghostly feeling and that
inward sense of the Grace of God which Luther at the outset . . .
declared to be necessary for salvation, writing that : ' No one can
rightly understand God or the Word of God unless he has it
direct from the Holy Ghost.' No one, however, can receive it
from the Holy Ghost unless he experiences it, makes trial of it
and feels it ; in this experience the Holy Ghost is teaching us as

1 Ib. 2 Ib. 3 Ib.

4 16., p. 343 f. Cp. " Epistolar," 2, 2, p. 912. Ecke, p. 176. Cp.
Dollinger, on Schwenckfeld, in " Die Reformation," 1, p. 254 ff.

v. — M

162 LUTHER THE REFORMER

in His own school, outside of which nothing is learned but all Is
mere delusion, words and vapouring."1

" How would Dr. Luther's own gloss stand," Schwenckfeld
asks elsewhere, " which he gives on the words of the New Testa
ment, 1 Cor. xi. : ' Let a man prove himself,' and where he says :
' to prove oneself is to feel one's faith,' etc. ? But the man who
feels his faith will assuredly by such a faith — which is a power
of God and the very being of the Holy Ghost — have forgiveness
of sins and bear Christ in his believing heart."2

He reproaches Luther with having in later days failed to
distinguish between the outward Word or preaching and the
inward living Word of God. The blunt assertion of the preachers
— which was encouraged by " Luther's unapostolic treatment of
the problem of Christian experience"3 — that faith referred
solely to the written Word and was elicited merely by preaching, 4
leads in practice to neglect of those passages of Scripture which
speak of the Divine character of faith and of its transmission by
the Holy Ghost ; owing to the lack of a faith really felt, there was
also wanting any " holiness of life worked by the Spirit, and any
moral justice and sanctification."5

Schwenckfeld on the Popular Church and the New Divine

Service

The system of a State Church then being set up, the
externalism of the Lutheran Popular Church and the
worship introduced were naturally looked at askance by
the promoter of the Church Apart of true believers ; at the
same time his strictures are not unduly biassed.6

He looks at the matter from the standpoint of Lutheran
freedom, or as Carl Ecke expresses it, of " the early Christian
individualism rediscovered by Luther."7 From this point
of view Schwenckfeld can detect in the official Lutheran
Church only a shadow of the Apostolic Church. Not merely
the principle of the multitude, but also the appeal to the
authorities for help and coercion was opposed to the spirit
of Christ, at least according to all he had learnt from Luther.

" He raises the question whether that can possibly be the true
Church of Christ where human coercion, force, commands and
prohibitions, rather than Christian freedom and willingness, rule
over faith and conscience. . . . The secular sword has no place

1 " Epistolar," 2, 2, p. 913. Ecke, p. 55.

2 Ib., p. 427. Cp. " Epistolar," I., p. 410.

3 Ecke's words, p. 161.

4 " Epistolar," 2, 2, p. 513, cp. p. 403 ff. ; 1, p. 424. Ecke, ib.

5 Ecke, p. 162.

« Cp. Ecke, p. 160, n. 3. ' Ib., p. 222.

SCHWENCKFELD ON LUTHER 163

in the Churches of Christ, but belongs to the secular authorities
for the punishment of the wicked. . . . As little as it is in the
power of the authorities to bestow the faith on anyone, to
strengthen or increase it, so little does it befit it to force, coerce
or urge. . . . What the authorities do here [in matters of faith]
is nothing but violence, insolence and tyranny."1

But " we always want to attract the great crowd ! "2 " They
saw the great multitude and feared lest the churches should
dwindle away."3 How were they to keep "Mr. Omnes, the
common people, faithful to their churches without the help of
the secular arm ? "4 They do not even think of first honestly
instructing the magistrates how to become Christians and what
the duty of a Christian is. ... I am unable in conscience to
agree with those who make idols of them so speedily and per
suade them that they already have that, which their own con
science tells them they have never received."5

At the Supper, too, so he complains, owing to the want of proper
discrimination between the converted and unconverted, " a false
security of conscience is aroused, whereby people are led away
from true repentance ; for they teach that it is a source of
grace, indulgence, ablution of sin, and salvation, whereas it is plain
that no one receives anything of the kind."6 In his view it is
not right to say that the Supper leads man to reconciliation with
God by enlivening his faith, and that even that man " who is
full of sin or has a bad conscience gnawed and bitten by his sins "
should receive it, as the preachers teach ;7 on the contrary, only
those who are reconciled have the right to approach. " Not the
man who wants to be holy [the unjustified], but he who has
already been hallowed by Christ, is fit for the Supper."8

From the standpoint of his own peculiar doctrine he charac
terises it as a downright error on Luther's part to have " put
Justification even into the Sacrament " — Schwenckfeld himself
had thrown all the sacraments overboard. — He also reproaches
Luther with teaching, that : " Forgiveness of sins, which is only
to be found in Christ as ruler, is to be sought in the Sacrament."9

Now, Schwenckfeld was far from advising people to for
sake the official Church ; he did not recommend that the
church service and its ceremonies and sermons should be
shunned, he feared lest such advice might play into the
hands of the Anabaptists. He recommends as necessary
an "external practice of godliness."10 Yet, according to
him, this was more readily carried out in private con-

1 Ecke, p. 180 f. ; from MS. sources.

2 " Epistolar," 2, 2, p. 639. Ecke, p. 179.

3 " Epistolar," 1, p. 99. Ecke, p. 181. 4 Ib. Ecke, p. 182.
5 Ib., 1, p. 92. Ecke, p. 181. 6 Ib., p. 736. Ecke, p. 182.

7 " Christl. Biicher," p. 363. Ecke, p. 173.

8 Ib. 9 " Epistolar," 2, 2, p. 1014. Ecke, p. 160.
10 Ecke, p. 227, MS.

164 LUTHER THE REFORMER

venticles, i.e. in some sort of congregation apart of the true
believers such as Luther himself had long dreamt of, and
in conversation with Schwenckfeld, in 1525, regretted his
inability to establish owing to the fewness of true Christians.
(Above, p. 138 f.)

Luther in the meantime had become reconciled to the
outer, Popular, Church, and, with his preachers' help, had
made of the outward Word a law.

The imperious behaviour of Luther and the preachers
in the matter of the outward Word was, however, odious
to Schwenckfeld. He protested strongly against being tied
down to professions of faith liable at any moment to be
rendered obsolete by new discoveries in Scripture truth.1
Interest in things Divine was regarded as a privilege of the
pastor's office and the layman was kept in ignorance on the
ground, that " one must believe blindly."2 Luther " is
setting up a new tyranny, and wishes to tie men to his
doctrine."3

1 " Christl. Biicher," pp. 962, 965. Ecke, p. 191.

2 " Epistolar," 1, p. 173. " Christl. Biicher," p. 74 f., 549. Ecke, ib.

3 " Epistolar," 1, p. iii. B. Ecke, p. 86.

CHAPTER XXX

LUTHER AT THE ZENITH OF HIS LIFE AND SUCCESS, FROM
1540 ONWARDS. APPREHENSIONS AND PRECAUTIONS

1. The Great Victories of 1540-1544

THE opening of the Diet of Ratisbon in 1541 1 coincided with
the advance of Protestantism in one of the strongholds of
the power and influence of Albert of Mayence. The usual
residence of the Archbishop and Elector was at Halle, in
his diocese of Magdeburg. Against this town accordingly
all the already numerous Protestants in Albert's sees of
Magdeburg and Halberstadt directed their united efforts.
Albert was compelled by the local Landtag to abolish the
Catholic so-called " Neue Stift " at Halle, and to remove
his residence to Mayence. Thereupon Jonas, Luther's
friend, at once, on Good Friday, 1541, commenced to preach
at the church of St. Mary's at Halle. He then became
permanent preacher and head of the growing movement
in the town, while two other churches were also seized by
Lutheran preachers.

The town and bishopric of Naumburg, which had been
much neglected by its bishop, Prince Philip of Bavaria,
who resided at Freising, fell a prey to the innovations under
the Elector Johann Frederick of Saxony ; this in spite of
being an imperial city under the immediate protection of the
Emperor. The Elector had taken advantage of his position
as arbitrator, thanks to his influence and to the authority
he soon secured, gradually to establish himself in Naumburg.
By his orders, in 1541, as soon as Philip was dead, Nicholas
Medler began to preach at the Cathedral as " Superintendent
of Naumburg " ; Julius Pflug, the excellent Provost, who had
been elected bishop by the Cathedral chapter, was prevented
by the Elector from taking possession of the see. Even the

1 See above, vol. iv., p. 367.
165

166 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Wittenberg theologians were rather surprised at the haste
and violence with which the Elector proceeded to upset the
religious conditions there, and — a matter which concerned
him deeply — to seize the city and the whole diocese. (See
below, p. 191 f.)

The storm was already gathering over the archbishopric
of Cologne under the weak and illiterate Archbishop, Her
mann von Wied. This man, who was in reality more of a
secular ruler, after having in earlier days shown himself
kindly disposed to the Church, was won over, first by Peter
Medmann in 1539 and then by Martin Bucer in 1541, and
persuaded to introduce Lutheranism. Only by the energetic
resistance of the chapter, and particularly of the chief
Catholics of the archdiocese, was the danger warded off ;
to them the Archbishop owed, first his removal, and then
his excommunication.

On March 28, 1546, shortly before the excommunication,
the Emperor Charles V said to Landgrave Philip of Hesse,
who had been pleading the cause of Hermann : " Why does
he start novelties ? He knows no Latin, and, in his whole
life, has only said three Masses, two of which I attended
myself. He does not even understand the Confiteor. To
reform does not mean to bring in another belief or another
religion."1

" We are beholders of the wonders of God," so Luther
wrote to Hermann Bonn, his preacher, at Osnabriick ;
" such great Princes and Bishops are now being called of
God by the working of the Holy Ghost."2 He was speaking
not only of the misguided Archbishop of Cologne but also
of the Bishop of Minister and Osnabriick, who had intro
duced the new teaching at Osnabriick by means of Bonn,
Superintendent of Liibeck. Luther, however, was rather
too sanguine. In the same year he announced to Duke
Albert of Prussia : " The two bishops of 4 Collen ' and
Miinster, have, praise be to God, accepted the Evangel in
earnest, strongly as the Canons oppose it. Things are also
well forward in the Duchy of Brunswick."3 As a matter
of fact he turned out right only as regards Brunswick.

1 Ch. v. Rommel, " Philipp der Grossmiithige, Landgraf von
Hessen," 1, 1820, p. 517.

2 Aug. 5, 1543, " Brief e," ed. De Wette, 5, p. 580.

3 May 7, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 557.

PROGRESS OF THE CAUSE 167

Henry, the Catholic Duke, was expelled in 1542 by the
Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse after the
war which broke out on account of Goslar had issued in his
loss of the stronghold of Wolfenbuttel ; thereupon with the
help of Bugenhagen the churches of the land were forcibly
brought over to Lutheranism.

In 1544 the appointment at Merseburg of a bishop of the
new faith in the person of George of Anhalt followed on
Duke Maurice of Saxony's illegal seizure of the see. So bare
faced was this act of spoliation that even Luther entered
a protest against " this rapacious onslaught on Church
property."1 The appointment of an " Evangelical bishop "
at Naumburg took place in 1542 under similar circumstances.

From Metz, where the preacher Guillaume Farel was work
ing for the Reformation, an application was received for
admission into the Schmalkalden League. The Lutherans
there received at least moral support from Melanchthon
who, in the name of the League, addressed a writing to the
Duke of Lorraine. Not only distant Transylvania, but even
Venice, held correspondence with Luther in order to obtain
from him advice and instructions concerning the Protestant
congregations already existing in those regions.

Thus the author of the religious upheaval might well
congratulate himself, when, in the evening of his days, he
surveyed the widespread influence of his work.

He was at the same time well aware what a potent factor
in all this progress was the danger which menaced Germany
from the Turks. The Protestant Estates continued to ex
ploit the distress of the Empire to their own advantage in
a spirit far from loyal. They insisted on the Emperor's
granting their demands within the Empire before they
would promise effectual aid against the foe without ; their
conduct was quite inexcusable at such a time, when a new
attack on Vienna was momentarily apprehended, and when
the King of France was quite openly supporting the Turks.

In the meantime as a result of the negotiations an Imperial
army was raised and Luther published his prudent " Ver-
manunge zum Gebet wider den Tiircken." In this he
advised the princes to do their duty both towards God
and the Evangel and towards the Empire by defending it
against the foe. The Pope is as much an enemy as the

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 562.

168 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Turk, and the world has reached its close, for the last Judg
ment is at hand.1

The Emperor found it advisable to show himself even
more lenient than before ; the violent encroachments of
the Protestants, which so unexpectedly strengthened their
position, were allowed to pass unresisted ; the ecclesiastical
and temporal penalties pronounced against the promoters
of the innovations remained a dead letter, and for the time
being the Church property was left in their hands. At the
Diet of Spires, in 1544, the settlement was deferred to a
General Council which the Reichsabschied describes as a
" Free Christian Council within the German Nation."

As was only to be expected, Paul III, the supreme head
of Christendom, energetically protested against such a
decision. With dignity, and in the supreme consciousness of
his rights and position, the Pope reminded the Emperor that
a Council had long since been summoned (above, vol. iii.,
p. 424) and was only being delayed on account of the war.
It did not become the civil power, nor even the Emperor,
to inaugurate the religious settlement, least of all at the
expense of the rights of Church and Pope as had been the
case ; to the Vicar of Christ and the assembly summoned
by him it fell to secure the unity of the Church and to lay
down the conditions of reunion ; yet the civil power had
left the Pope in the lurch in his previous endeavours to
summon a Council and to establish peace in Germany ;
" God was his witness that he had nothing more at heart
than to see the whole of the noble German people reunited
in faith and all charity " ; " willingly would he spend life
and blood, as his conscience bore him witness, in the attempt
to bring this about in the right way." 2

These admonitions fell on deaf ears, as the evil work was
already done. The consent, which, by dint of defiance and
determination, the Protestant princes wrung from Empire
and Emperor, secured the triumph of the religious revolution
in ever wider circles.

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 32, p. 75 ff. Cp. above, vol. iii., p. 91 ff.

2 Letter to the Emperor Charles V, Aug. 24, 1544, in Raynaldus,
" Annales," a. 1544 ; in German in " Luthers Werke," Walch's ed.,
17, p. 1253 ff. For the former attitude of the Papacy to the idea of the
Council, cp. our vol. iii., p. 424 ff.

FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS 169

2. Sad Forebodings

In spite of all his outward success, Luther, at the height
of his triumph, was filled with melancholy forebodings
concerning the future of his work.

He felt more and more that the new Churches then being
established lacked inward stability, and that the principle
on which they were built was wanting in unity, cohesion
and permanence. Neither for the protection of the faith
nor for the maintenance of an independent system of
Church government were the necessary provisions forth
coming. Indeed, owing to the very nature of his under
taking, it was impossible that such could be effectually sup
plied ; thus a vision of coming disunion, particularly in the
domain of doctrine, unrolled itself before his eyes ; this
was one of the factors which saddened him.

As early as the 'thirties we find him giving vent to his
fears of an ever-increasing disintegration. In the 'forties they
almost assume the character of definite prophecies.

In the Table-Talk of 1538, which was noted down by the
Deacon Lauterbach, he seeks comfort in the thought that every
fresh revival of religion had been accompanied by quarrels due
to false brethren, by heresies and decay ; it was true that now
"the morning star had arisen" owing to his preaching, but he
feared " that this light would not endure for long, not for more
than fifty years"; the Word of God would "again decline for
want of able ministers of the Word."1 " There will come want
and spiritual famine " ; " many new interpretations will arise,
and the Bible will no longer hold. Owing to the sects that will
spring up I would rather I had not printed my books."2

" I fear that the best is already over and that now the sects
will follow."3 The pen was growing heavy to his fingers ; there
" will be no end to the writings," he says ; " I have outlived
three frightful storms, Miinzer, the Sacramentarians and the
Anabaptists ; these are over, but now others will come." " I
wish not to live any longer since no peace is to be hoped for."4
" The Evangel is endangered by the sectarians, the revolutionary
peasants and the belly servers, just as once the Roman empire
was at Rome."5

" On June 27 [1538]," we read, " Dr. Luther and Master Philip
were dining together at his house. They spoke much, with many
a sigh, of the coming times when many dangers would arise."
The greatest confusion would prevail. No one would then allow

1 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 172 f. 2 Ib., p. 62.

3 Ib., p. 70. 4 Ib., p. 114. 5 Ib., p. 80.

170 LUTHER THE REFORMER

himself to be guided by the doctrine or authority of another.
" Each one will wish to be his own Rabbi, like Osiander and
Agricola. From this the worst scandals and the greatest desola
tion will come. Hence it would be best [one said], that the
Princes should forestall it by some council, if only the Papists
would not hold back and flee from the light. Master Philip
replied : The Pope will never be brought to hold a General
Council. . . . Oh, that our Princes and the Estates would bring
about a council and some sort of unity in doctrine and worship
so as to prevent each one undertaking something on his own
account to the scandal of many, as some are already doing. The
Church is a spectacle of woe, with so much weakness and scandal
heaped upon her."1

Shortly after this Luther instituted a comparison — which for
him must have been very sad — between the " false Church [of
the Pope] which stands erect, a cheerful picture of dignity,
strength and holiness," and the Church of Christ " which lies
in such misery and ignominy, sin and insignificance as though
God had no care for her." He fancied he could find some slight
comfort in the Article of the Creed : "I believe in the Holy
Church," for, so he observes, " because we don't see it, therefore
we believe in it."2

In the midst of the great successes of those years he still gives
utterance to the gloomiest of predictions for the future of his
doctrine, which dissensions would eat to the very core. His pupil
Mathesius reports him as holding forth as follows :

" Alas, good God," he groaned in 1540, " how we have to suffer
from divisions ! . . . And many more sects will come. For the
spirit of lies and murder does not sleep. . . . But God will save
His Christendom."3 — In 1542 someone remarked in his presence :
" Were the world to last fifty years longer many things would
happen." Thereupon Luther interjected : " God forbid, things
would get worse than ever before ; for many sects will arise which
yet are hidden in men's hearts, so that we shall not know how
we stand. Hence, dear Lord, come with Thy Judgment Day, for
no further improvement is now to be looked for ! "4 — After
instancing the principal sects that had arisen up to that time he
said, in 1540 : " After our death many sects will arise, God
help us ! "5 " But whoever after my death despises the authority
of this school — so long as the Church and the school remain as
they are — is a heretic and an evil man. For in this school [of
Wittenberg] God has revealed His Word, and this school and town
can take a place side by side with any others in the matter of
doctrine and life, even though our life be not yet quite above
reproach. . . . Those who flee from us and secretly contemn us
have denied the faith. . . . Who knew anything five- and- twenty

1 Ib., p. 91 f. Cp. " Colloq." ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 90 sq. ; " Werke,"
Erl. ed., 62, p. 42 f.

2 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 101.

3 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 138. 4 Ib., p. 287.
5 Ib., p. 231.

FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS 171

years ago [before my preaching started] ? Alas for ambition ;
it is the cause of all the misfortunes."1

Frequently he reverts to the theory, that the Church must
needs put up with onsets and temptations to despair. " Now
even greater despair has come upon us on account of the sec
tarians," he said in 1537 ; " the Church is in despair according
to the words of the Psalmist (cviii. 92) : ' Unless Thy Law had
been my meditation I had then perhaps perished in my abjec
tion.' "2

At an earlier period (1531) a sermon of Luther's vividly
pictures this despair : "If, in spiritual matters, it comes about,
that the devil sows his seed in Christ's kingdom and it springs
up both in doctrine and life, then we have a crop of misery and
distress. In the preaching it happens, that although God has
appointed one man and commanded him to preach the Evangel,
yet others are found even amongst his pupils who think they know
how to do it ten times better than he. . . . Every man wants
to be master in doctrine. . . . Now they are saying : ' Why
should not we have the Spirit and understand Scripture just as
well as anyone else ? ' Thus a new doctrine is at once set up and
sects are formed. . . . Hence a deadly peril to Christendom
ensues, for it is torn asunder and pure doctrine everywhere
perishes."3 Christ had indeed " foretold that this would happen";
true enough, it is not forbidden to anyone " who holds the public
office of preacher to judge of doctrine " ; but whoever has not
such an office has no right to do so ; if he does this of " his own
doctrine and spirit," then " I call such judging of doctrine one
of the greatest, most shameful and most wicked vices to be found
upon earth, one from which all the factious spirits have arisen."4

Duke George of Saxony unfeelingly pointed out to the innovator
that his fear, that many, very many indeed, would say : " Do
we not also possess the Spirit and understand Scripture as well
as you ? " would only too surely be realised.

" What man on earth," wrote the Duke in his usual downright
fashion, " ever hitherto undertook a more foolish task than you
in seeking to include in your sect all Christians, especially those
of the German nation ? Success is as likely in your case as it
was in that of those who set about building a tower in Babylonia
which was to reach the very heavens ; in the end they had to
cease from building, and the result was seventy- two new tongues.
The same will befall you ; you also will have to stop, and the
result will be seventy- two new sects."5

Luther's letters speak throughout in a similar strain of
the divisions already existing and the gloomy outlook for
the future ; in the 'forties his lamentation over the approach -

1 Ib., p. 169. 2 /6>> PI 417>

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 32, p. 474 ; Erl. ed., 43, p. 263.

4 Ib., p. 475 = 264 f.

5 In the " Antwort auf das Schmahbuchlein," etc., " Luthers
Werke," Erl. ed., 252, p. 146.

172 LUTHER THE REFORMER

ing calamities becomes, however, even louder than usual
in spite of the apparent progress of his cause. Much of what
he says puts us vividly in mind of Duke George's words just
quoted.

Amidst the excitement of his struggle with the fanatics
he wrote as early as 1525 to the " Christians at Antwerp " :
" The tiresome devil begins to rage amongst the ungodly
and to belch forth many wild and mazy beliefs and doctrines.
This man will have nothing of baptism, that one denies the
Sacrament, a third awaits another world between this and
the Last Day ; some teach that Christ is not God ; some
say this, some that, and there are as many sects and beliefs
as there are heads ; no peasant is so rude but that if he
dreams or fancies something, it must forsooth be the Holy
Spirit which inspires him, and he himself must be a prophet."1

After the bitter experiences of the intervening years we find
in a letter of 1536 this bitter lament : " Pray for me that I too
may be delivered from certain ungodly men, seeing you rejoice
that God has delivered you from the Anabaptists and the sects.
For new prophets are constantly arising against me one after the
other, so that I almost wish to be dissolved in order not to see
such evils without end, and to be set free at last from this kingdom
of the devil."2

Even in the strong pillars of the Evangel, in the Landgrave of
Hesse and Bucer the theologian, he apprehended treason to his
cause and complains of them as " false brethren." At the time
of the negotiations at Ratisbon, in 1541, he exclaims in a letter to
Melanchthon : " They are making advances to the Emperor and
to our foes, and look on our cause as a comedy to be played out
among the people, though as is evident it is a tragedy between
God and Satan in which Satan's side has the upper hand and
God's comes off second best. ... I say this with anger and am
incensed at their games. But so it must be ; the fact that we
are endangered by false brethren likens us to the Apostle Paul,
nay, to the whole Church, and is the sure seal that God stamps
upon us."3

In spite of this " seal of God," he is annoyed to see how his
Evangel becomes the butt of " heretical attacks " from within,
and suffers from the disintegrating and destructive influence of
the immorality and godlessness of many of his followers.

This, for instance, he bewails in a letter of condolence sent in
1541 to Wenceslaus Link of Nuremberg. At Nuremberg accord-

1 April, 1525, " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 547 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 342
(" Briefwechsel," 5, p. 151).

2 To the Preacher Balthasar Raida of Hersfeld, Jan. 17, 1536,
" Briefwechsel," 10, p. 288.

3 April 4, 1541, " Briefwechsel," 13, p. 291.

FEARS AND APPREHENSIONS 173

ing to Link's account the evil seemed to be assuming a menacing
shape. Not the foe without, writes Luther, but rather " our
great gainsayers within, who repay us with contempt, are the
danger we must fear, according to the words of the common
prophecy : ' After Antichrist has been revealed men will come
who say : There is no God ! ' This we see everywhere fulfilled
to-day. . . . They think our words are but human words ! '51

About this time he often contemplates with sadness the
abundance of other crying disorders in his Churches, 2 the wanton
ness of the great and the decadence of the people ; he cries :
" Hasten, O Jesus, Thy coming ; the evils have come to a head
and the end cannot be delayed. Amen."3 " I am sick of life if
this life can be called life. . . . Implacable hatred and strife
amongst the great ... no hopes of any improvement . . . the
age is Satan's own ; gladly would I see myself and all my people
quickly snatched from it ! "4 The evil spirit of apostasy and
fanatism which had raged so terribly at Minister, was now,
according to him, particularly busy amongst the great ones, just
as formerly it had laid hold on the peasants. " May God prevent
him and resist him, the evil spirit, for truly he means mischief."5

And yet he still in his own way hopes in God and clings to the
idea of his call ; God will soon mock at the devil : " The working
of Satan is patent, but God at Whom they now laugh will mock
at Satan in His own time."6

We can understand after such expressions descriptive
of his state of mind, the assurance with which, for all his
confidence of victory, he frequently seems to forecast the
certain downfall of his cause. In the German Table-Talk,
for instance, we read : "So long as those who are now living
and who teach the Word of God diligently are still with us,
those who have seen and heard me, Philip, Pomeranus and
other pious, faithful and honest teachers, all may be well ;
but when they all are gone and this age is over, there will
be a falling away."7 He also sees how two great and widely
differing parties will arise among his followers : unbelievers
on the one hand and Pietists and fanatics on the other ;
we have a characteristic prophecy of the sort where he says
of the one party, that, like the Epicureans, they would

1 To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, " Briefe," 5, p. 398.

2 To the Elector Johann Frederick, Jan. 18, 1545, ib., p. 716 : " I
will have them [the lawyers] eternally damned and cursed in my
Churches."

3 To Justus Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, ib., p. 612.

4 To Jacob Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, ib., p. 703.

5 To Amsdorf, Jan. 8, 1546, ib., p. 773 f. 6 /&., p. 774.

7 Cp. (E. v. Jarcke) " Studien und Skizzen z. Gesch. d. Ref.," 1846,
p. 68.

174 LUTHER THE REFORMER

acknowledge " no God or other life after this," and of the
other, that many people would come out of the school of
enthusiasm, " following their own ideas and speculations and
boasting of the Spirit " ; " drunk with their own virtues
and having their understanding darkened," they would
" obstinately insist on their own fancies and yield to no
one."1

And again he says sadly : " God will sweep His threshing-
floor. I pray that after my death my wife and children
may not long survive me ; very dangerous times are at
hand."2 " I pray God," he frequently said, " to take away
this our generation with us, for, when once we are gone, the
worst of times will follow."3 The preacher, " M. Antonius
Musa once said," so he recalls : " We old preachers only
vex the world, but on you young ones the world will pour
out its wrath ; therefore take heed to yourselves."4

This is not the place to investigate historically the fulfil
ment of these predictions. We shall content ourselves with
quoting, in connection with Musa, the words of another
slightly later preacher. Cyriacus Spangenberg saw in
Luther a prophet, for one reason because his gloomiest pre
dictions were being fulfilled before the eyes of all. In the
third sermon of his book, " Luther the Man of God," he
shows to what frightful contempt the preachers of Luther's
unadulterated doctrine were everywhere exposed, just as he
himself (Spangenberg) was hated and persecuted for being
over-zealous for the true faith of the " Saint " of Witten
berg. " Ah," he says in a sermon in 1563 couched in Luther's
style, " Shame on thy heart, thy neck, thy tongue, thou
filthy and accursed world. Thy blasphemy, fornication, un-
chastity, gluttony and drunkenness . . . are not thought
too much ; but that such should be scolded is too much.
... If this be not the devil himself, then it is something
very like him and is assuredly his mother."5

3. Provisions for the Future

Luther failed to make the effectual and systematic efforts
called for in order to stave off the fate to which he foresaw
his work would be exposed. He was not the man to put

1 Ib. 2 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 158. 3 Ib., p. 198.
4 Ib., p. 200. 5 " Theander Lutherus," Ursel s.a., Bl. 59'.

A COUNCIL SUGGESTED 175

matters in order, quite apart from the unstirmountable
difficulties this would have involved, seeing he possessed little
talent for organisation. He was very well aware that one
expedient would be to surrender church government almost
entirely into the hands of the secular authorities.

A Protestant Council?

The negotiations which preceded the (Ecumenical Council
of the Catholic Church, had for one result not only to impress
the innovators with a sense of their own unsettled state, but
to lead them to discuss the advisability of holding a great
Protestant council of their own. Luther himself, however,
wisely held aloof from such a plan, nay his opposition to
it was one of the main obstacles which prevented its fulfil
ment.

When the idea was first mooted in 1533 it was rejected
by Luther and his theologians Jonas, Bugenhagen and
Melanchthon in a joint memorandum. " Because it is
plain," so they declare, " that we ourselves are not at one,
and must first of all consider how we are to arrive at unity
amongst ourselves. In short, though an opposition council
might be good and useful it is needless to speak of such a
thing just now."1

In 1537 the Landgrave of Hesse, and more particularly
the Elector of Saxony, again proposed at Schmalkalden
that Luther, following the example of the Greeks and the
Bohemians, should summon a council of his own, a national
Evangelical council, to counteract the Papal Council.2 The
Elector proposed that it should be assembled at Augsburg
and comprise at least 250 preachers and men of the law ;
the Emperor might be invited to attend and a considerable
army was also to be drafted to Augsburg for the protection
of the assembly. At that time Luther's serious illness saved
him from an embarrassing situation.

Bucer and Melanchthon were now the sole supporters of

1 After June 16, 1533, " Werke," Erl. ed., 55, p. 20. (" Brief-
wechsel," 9, p. 312.) The passage in question in the original at
Weimar is in Melanchthon's handwriting. Cp. Enders, p. 313, on the
historical connection of the memorandum.

" Corp. ref.," 3, p. 139 sqq. Rommel, " Philipp von Hessen,"
1, p. 417. Janssen, "Hist, of the German People" (Engl. Trans.),
vol. v., p. 527 ff. Pastor, " Die kirchl, Reunionsbestrebungen wahrend
der Regierung Karls V," p. 95,

176 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the plan of a council. Both were men who believed in
mediation and Melanchthon may really have hoped for
a while, that the " philosophy of dissimulation," for which
he stood,1 might, even in a council, palliate the inward
differences and issue in something tolerably satisfactory.
Luther himself was never again to refer to the Evangelical
Council.

It was the theologians headed by Martin Bucer, who, at the
Diet of Schmalkalden in 1540 at which Luther was not present,
lodged a memorandum on the advisability of holding a council.
The petitioners declared it " very useful and called for, both for
the saving of unity in doctrine and for the bettering of many
other things, that, every one or two years, the Estates should
convene a synod ; Visitors chosen there were to " silence any
errors in doctrine" that they might discover.2 The Estates,
however, did not agree to this proposal ; it was easy to foresee
that it would be unworkable and productive of evil. It was
only necessary to call to mind the fruitlessness of the great
assemblies at Cassel and Wittenberg which had brought about
the so-called Wittenberg Concord and the disturbances to which
the Concord gave rise.3

Bucer keenly regreted the absence of any ecclesiastical unity
and cohesion amongst his friends.

" Not even a shadow of it remains," so he wrote to Bullinger.
" Every church stands alone and every preacher for himself.
Not a few shun all connection with their brethren and any
discussion of the things of Christ. It is just like a body the
members of which are cut off and where one cannot help the other.
Yet the spirit of Christ is a spirit of harmony ; Christ wills that
His people should be one, as He and the Father are one, and that
they love one another as He loved us. . . . Unless we become
one in the Lord every effort at mending and reviving morals is
bound to be useless. For this reason," he continues, " it was
the wish of (Ecolampadius when the faith was first preached at
Basle, to see the congregations represented and furthered by
synods. But he was not successful even amongst us [who stood
nearest to him in the faith]. I cannot say that to-day there is
any more possibility of establishing this union of the Churches ;
but the real cause of our decline certainly lies in this inability.
Possibly, later on, others may succeed where we failed. For,
truly, what we have received of the knowledge of Christ and of
discipline will fade away unless we, who are Christ's, unite our
selves more closely as members of His Body."

He proceeds to indicate plainly that one of the main obstacles

1 To Brenz, April 14, 1537, " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 340 : " Ulyssea
philosophia . . . multa dissimulantes"

2 Letter of March 10, 1540, in Bindseil, " Melanchthonis epistolae,
iudicia, etc.," 1874, p. 146.

3 Cp. above, vol. iii., p4421 ff.

A COUNCIL SUGGESTED 177

to such a union was Luther's rude and offensive behaviour
towards the Swiss theologians : Luther had undoubtedly heaped
abuse on " guiltless brethren." But with this sort of thing,
inevitable in his case, it would be necessary to put up. " Will
it not be better for us to let this pass than to involve so
many Churches in even worse scandals ? Could I, without grave
damage to the Churches, do something to stop all this vitupera
tion, then assuredly I should not fail to do so."1

Unfortunately the peacemaker's efforts could avail nothing
against a personality so imperious and ungovernable as Luther's.

Bucer continued nevertheless to further the idea of a Protestant
council, though, so long as Luther lived, only with bated breath.
He endeavoured at least to interest the Landgrave of Hesse in
his plan for holding small synods of theologians.

It was the want of unity in the matter of doctrine and the
visible decline of discipline that drove him again and again to
think of this remedy. On Jan. 8, 1544, he wrote to Landgrave
Philip : In so many places there is "no profession of faith, no
penalties, no excommunication of those who sin publicly, nor
yet any Visitation or synod. Only what the lord or burgomaster
wished was done, and, in place of one Pope, many Popes have
arisen and things become worse and worse from day to day."
He reminds the Prince of the proposal made at Schmalkalden ;
because nothing was done to put this in effect, scandals were on
the increase. " We constantly find that scarcely a third or fourth
part communicate with Christ. What sort of Christians will
there be eventually ? "2 — In the same way he tells him later :
Because no synods are held " many things take place daily which
ought really greatly to trouble all of us."3 In Wiirtemberg and
in some of the towns of Swabia the authorities were dissuaded by
the groundless fear lest the preachers should once more gain too
much influence ; this was why the secular authorities were averse
to synods and Visitations ; but " on this account daily arise
gruesome divisions in matters of doctrine and unchastity of life ;
we find some who are daily maddened with drink and who give
such scandal in other matters that the enemies of Christ have a
terrible excuse for blaspheming and hindering our true Gospel.
... At the last Schmalkalden meeting all the preachers were
anxious that synods and Visitations should be ordered and held
everywhere. But who has paid any heed to this ? " And yet
this is the best means whereby " our holy religion might be
preserved and guarded from the new Papists amongst us, i.e.
those who do not accept the Word of God in its purity and
entirety, but explain it away, pull it to pieces, distort and bend
it as their own sensual passions and temptations move them."4

Once the main obstacle had been removed by Luther's death,

1 Letter of Dec. 28, 1543, in Lenz, " Brief wechsel des Landgrafen
Philipp von Hessen," 2, p. 227. " Nihil est quod minus multum [read
inulturri] relinquerem."

2 Lenz, ib., p. 241. 3 Letter of Feb. 25, 1545, Lenz, p. 304,
4 Letter of Dec. 1, 1545, Lenz, p. 379,

V,— N

178 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Bucer, who was very confident of his own abilities, again mooted
the idea of a great council. In the same letter to Landgrave
Philip of Hesse in which he refers to the death of Luther, " the
father and teacher of us all," which had occurred shortly before,
he exhorts the Landgrave more emphatically than ever to co
operate, so that "first of all a general synod may be held of our
co-religionists of every estate," to which all the sovereigns should
despatch eminent preachers and councillors — i.e. be formally
convened by the secular authorities — and, that, subsequently
" particular synods be held in every country of the Churches
situated there."1 "Short of this the Churches will assuredly
fare badly."2

The Landgrave was not averse, yet the matter never got any
further. The terrible quarrels amongst the theologians in the
camp of the new faith after Luther's decease3 put any general
Protestant council out of the question.

We can imagine what such a council would have become,
if, in addition to the theologians, the lay element had been
represented to the extent demanded at a certain Disputa
tion held at Wittenberg under Luther's presidency in 1543.4
From the idea of the whole congregation taking its share in
the government of the Church, Luther could never entirely
shake himself free. Nevertheless it is probable, that, in
spite of this Disputation, he had not really changed his mind
as to the impossibility of an Evangelical council.

If, with Luther's, we compare Melanchthon's attitude
towards the question of a Lutheran council we find that
the latter's wish for such a council and his observations
about it afforded him plentiful opportunity for voicing his
indignation at the religious disruption then rampant.5

" Weak consciences are troubled," he said in 1536,
" and know not which sect to follow ; in their perplexity
they begin to despair of religion altogether."6 — " Violent
sermons, which promote lawlessness and break down all
barriers against the passions, are listened to greedily. Such

1 Letter of April 5, 1546, Lenz, p. 426 f.

2 Letter of May 12, 1545, Lenz, p. 433.

3 See below, vol. vi., xl., 3.

4 Seckendorf, " Comm. hist, de Lutheranismo," 3, Lips., 1694,
p. 468. The disputant, Johannes Marbach, received from Luther this
testimony : " Amplectitur pur am evangelii doctrinam, quam ecclesia
nostra uno spiritu et una voce profitetur." " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 5,
p. 543. Cp. Disputationen, ed. Drews, p. 700 ff. Some of Luther's
other statements concerning unity ring very differently.

5 Cp. vol. in., pp. 324, 363, 371 f.

9 " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 230 ; " Incipiunt de tola religione dubilare"

THE CONSISTORIES 179

preaching, more worthy of cynics than of Christians, it
is which thunders forth the false doctrine that good works
are not called for. Posterity will marvel that there should
ever have been an age when such madness was received with
applause."1 — " Had you made the journey with us," he
writes on his return from a visit to the Palatinate and
Swabia, " and, like us, seen the woeful desolation of the
Churches in so many places, you would doubtless long with
tears and sighs that the Princes and the learned should con
fer together how best to come to the help of the Churches."2
— Later again we read in his letters : " Behold how great
is everywhere the danger to the Churches and how difficult
their government ; for everywhere those in the ministry
quarrel amongst themselves and set up strife and division."
" We live like the nomads, no one obeys any man in any
thing whatsoever."3

Two provisions suggested by Luther for the future in
lieu of the impracticable synods were, the establishment of
national consistories and the use of a sort of excommunica
tion.

Luther's Attitude towards the Consistories introduced
in 1539

With strange resignation Luther sought to persuade him
self that, even without the help of any synods and general
laws, it would still be possible to re-establish order by means
of a certain supervision to be exercised with the assistance
of the State, backed by the penalty of exclusion. Against
laws and regulations for the guidance of the Church's life,
he displayed an ever-growing prejudice, the reason for this
being partly his peculiar ideas on the abrogation of all
governing authority of the Church, partly the experiences
with which he had met.

" So long as the sense of unity is not well rooted in the
heart and mind " — he wrote in 1545, i.e. after the establish
ment of the consistories — " outward unity is not of much
use, nor will it last long. . . . The existing observances [in
matters of worship] must not become laws. On the con-

1 " Pezelii Object, et resp. Melanchtonis," P. V., p. 289. Dollinger,
" Die Reformation," 1, p. 373.

2 Nov., 1536, to Myconius, " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 187.

3 Ib., pp. 460, 488 (1537 and 1538).

180 LUTHER THE REFORMER

trary, just as the schoolmaster and father of the family rule
without laws, and, in the school and in the home, correct
faults, so to speak only by supervision, so, in the same way,
in the Church, everything should be done by means of super
vision, but not by rules for the future. . . . Everything
depends on the minister of the Word being prudent and
faithful. For this reason we prefer to insist on the erection
of schools, but above all on that purity and uniformity
of doctrine which unites minds in the Lord. But, alas,
there are too few who devote themselves to study ; many
are just bellies and no more, intent on their daily bread.
. . . Time, however, will mend much that it is impossible
to settle beforehand by means of regulations."1

" If we make laws," he continues, " they become snares
for consciences and pure doctrine is obscured and set aside,
particularly if those who come after are careless and
unlearned. . . . Already during our lifetime we have seen
sects and dissensions enough under our very noses, how each
one follows his own way. In short, contempt for the Word
on our side and blasphemy on the other [Catholic] side pro
claim loudly enough the advent of the Last Day. Hence,
above all, let us have pure and abundant preaching of the
Word ! The ministers of the Word must first of all become
one heart and one soul. For if we make laws our successors
will lay claim to the same authority, and, fallen human
nature being what it is, the result will be a war of the flesh
against the flesh."2

In other words Luther foresaw a war of all against all
as likely sooner or later to be the result of any thorough
going attempt to regulate matters by means of laws as the
Catholics did in their councils. He and his friends were
persuaded that laws could only be made effectual by virtue
of the power of the State.

Melanchthon declared : " Unless the Court supports our
arrangements, what else will they become but Platonic
laws, to use a Greek saying ? "3

The idea to which Luther had clung so long as there was
any hope, viz. to make the congregations self-governing, was
but a fanciful and impracticable one ; when again, little by
little, he came to seek support from the secular authority,

1 To Prince George of Anhalt, June 10, 1545, " Brief e," ed. De
Wette, 6, p. 379. 2 Ib. 3 " Corp. ref.," 1, p. 907.

THE CONSISTORIES 181

he did so merely under compulsion ; he felt it to involve
a repudiation of his own principles, nor could he control his
jealousy when the far-reaching interference of the State
speedily became manifest.

In the Saxon electorate the consistories had been intro
duced in 1539, not so much at the instance of Luther as of
the committee representing the Estates. They were to deal
with ecclesiastical affairs and disputes, with complaints
against, and grievances of, the clergy, but chiefly with the
matrimonial cases. The earlier " Visitors " had lacked
executive powers. The consistory established by the
Elector at Wittenberg for the whole electorate was com
posed of two preachers (Jonas and Agricola), and two
lawyers. Luther raised many objections, particularly to the
consistory's proposed use of excommunication ; he feared
that, unless they stuck to his theological views, the con
sistories would lead to " yet another scrimmage." Later,
however, he gave the new organisation his support. It
was not till 1541 that the work of the consistories was more
generally extended.1

Luther consoled himself and Spalatin as follows for the loss
of dignity which they apprehended : " The consistory will deal
only with matrimonial cases, with which we no longer will or
can have any more to do ; also with the bringing back of the
peasants to some sort of discipline and the payment of stipends
to the preachers."2

For the Wittenberg consistory to relieve him of the matri
monial cases was in many respects just what he desired. He
had himself frequently dealt with these cases according to the
dictates of his own ever-changing views on marriage, so far as
he was allowed by his frequent quarrels with the lawyers who
questioned his right to interfere. He now declared : "I am glad
that the consistoria have been established, especially on account
of the matrimonial cases."3 As early as 1536, he had written :
" The peasants and rude populace who seek nothing but the
freedom of the flesh, and likewise the lawyers, who, whenever
possible, oppose our decisions, have wearied me so much that I
have flung aside the matrimonial cases and written to some
telling them that they may do just as they please in the name of
all the devils ; let the dead bury their dead ; for though I give
much advice, I cannot help the people when afterwards they are

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, pp. 441, 574.

2 To Spalatin, Jan. 12, 1541. " Brief wechsel," 13, p. 246. " Spala
tin foresaw what was to come better than did Luther." K. Holl,
"Luther und das landesherrliche Kirchenregiment," 1911, p. 57.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 61, p. 223, Table-Talk.

182 LUTHER THE REFORMER

robbed and teased [by the lawyers]. If the world will have the
Pope then let it have him if otherwise it cannot be."

" So far I have not found one single lawyer," he continues,
speaking of a certain matrimonial question, " who would hold
with me against the Pope in this or any similar case. . . . We
theologians know nothing, and are not supposed to count."1

It was in part nausea and wounded vanity, in part also his
abhorrence for the ecclesiastical and sacramental side of marriage
which caused him repeatedly to declare : "I would we were
rid of the matrimonial business " ;2 " marriage and all its circum
stances is a political affair " (both statements date from 1538) ;3
" leave the matrimonial cases to the secular authorities, for they
concern, not the conscience, but the external law of the Princes
and magistrates " (1532).4

Of the ecclesiastical powers of the sovereign he declared
however (1539), "We must make the best of him as bishop,
since no other bishop will help us."5

" But if things come to such a pass that the Courts try to rule
as they please," so he wrote at a time when this principle had
already begun to bear its bitter fruit, " then the last state will
be worse than the first ... in that case let the Lords them
selves be our pastors and preachers, let them baptise, visit the
sick, give communion and perform all the other offices of the
Church ! Otherwise let them stop confusing the two callings,
attend to their own Courts and leave the Churches to the clergy.
... It is Satan who in our day is seeking to introduce into the
Church the counsels and the authority of the government officials ;
we shall, however, resist him and keep the two callings separate."6

Yet the " two callings," the secular and the ecclesiastical,
were to become more and more closely intermingled. As
was inevitable, the weak spiritual authority set up by
Luther was soon absorbed by a strong secular authority
well aware of its own aims ; the secular power treated the
former as its sacristan charged with carrying out the services
of the Church, and gradually assumed exclusive control,
even in matters of doctrine. A moral servitude such as had
never been seen at any period in the history of the German
Church was the consequence of the State government of
the Church, brought about by the consistories.

1 To Count Albert of Mansfeld, Oct. 5, 1536, " Werke," Erl. ed.,
55, p. 147 (" Brief wechsel," 11, p. 90). Cp. above, vol. iii., 38 f., 263 f.

2 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 121.

3 Ib., p. 152.

4 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 82.

5 To the Visitors in Thuringia, March 25, 1539, " Briefe," 5, p. 173
(" Brief wechsel," 12, p. 118).

6 To Daniel Cresser, Oct. 22, 1543, " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 5,
p. 596, concerning certain occurrences at Dresden.

THE CONSISTORIES 183

In order to understand Luther's attitude towards the con
sistories and to gauge rightly his responsibility, some further
particulars of their rise and earliest form are called for.

In 1537 the " Great Committee of the Torgau district " de
manded, that the Elector should establish four consistories in
his lands. On these would devolve the looking after of " all
ecclesiasticce causce, the preaching office, the churches and ministers,
their vindication contra injurias, all that concerned their conduct
and life, and particularly the matrimonial suits." Some such
court was essential in the case of these suits, because, since the
dissolution of the bishops' courts, the utmost disorders had
prevailed and nobody even knew by which code the questions
pending were to be judged, whether by the old canon law with
which the lawyers were familiar, or according to the doctrine
and statutes of Luther which were quite a different thing. The
disciplinary system too had become so lax that some revision of
the Church judiciary appeared inevitable.

As for the principles which were to direct the new organisation :
Luther was inclined at times to be forgetful of his theory, that
his Churches should have no canon law of their own ; x even at
this grave crisis he does not seem to have been distinctly con
scious of it ; at the same time his jealousy made him unwilling
to see all the authority for governing the new Churches conferred
directly by the State, though, with his usual frankness, he
admitted it was impossible for things to continue as they were.
The most influential men of his circle were, however, determined
to have so-called ecclesiastical courts introduced by the sovereign,
which should then govern in his name ; hitherto, they urged, it
was the purely secular courts which had intervened, which was
a mistake, as had been shown in practice by their failure. Thus,
as R. Sohm put it, " did Melanchthon's ideas, from about 1537,
gradually oust those of Luther in the government of the Lutheran
Church."2

It was from this standpoint that, in his Memorandum of 1538
addressed to the Elector, Jonas, the lawyer and theologian,
supported the above-mentioned proposal of the Torgau assembly.

He points out that " the common people become daily more
savage and uncouth," and that " no Christian Church can hope
to stand where such rudeness and lawlessness prevail." According
to him the authority of the consistories was to embrace the whole
domain of Church government. They were, however, to derive
their authority direct from the sovereign, " through, and by order
of, the prince of the land." Hence " their indices were to have the
right to enforce their decisions " ; they were to be in a position
to wield the Greater Excommunication with its temporal conse
quences, also to inflict bodily punishment, fines and " suitable
terms of imprisonment," and therefore to have " men-at-arms "
and " a prison " at their disposal.3

Jonas and those who agreed with him fancied that what they

1 See above p. 55, ff., and vol. ii., p. 298.

2 " Kirchenrecht," 1, 1892, p. 613. 3 R. Sohm, ib., p. 615.

184 LUTHER THE REFORMER

were setting up with the help of the secular power was a spiritual
court ; in reality, however, they were advocating a purely
secular, coercive institution.

Luther's views differed from those of his friends in so far as
he wished to see the new courts — which he frowned at and
distrusted — merely invested with full powers for dealing with
matrimonial suits ; even here, however, he made a reservation,
insisting on the abrogation of canon law. The Elector's edict
of 1539 appointing the consistories, out of consideration for
Luther, was worded rather vaguely. The consistories were,
" until further notice," to see to the " ecclesiastical affairs "
which "have occurred so far or shall yet occur and be brought
to your cognisance." x According to this their authority was
received only " until further notice " from the ruler, to whom
it fell to bring cases to their " cognisance," and, who, naturally
kept the execution of the sentence in his own hands.

Luther, it is true, accepted the new arrangement, because, as
he said, it represented a " Church court " which could take over
the matrimonial cases. But forthwith he found himself in con
flict with the lawyers attached to the courts because they in
sisted on taking their stand on canon law. To his very death,
even in his public utterances, he lashed the men of the law for
thus submitting themselves to the Pope and to the code against
which his life's struggle had been directed. Yet the lawyers
were driven to make use of the old statutes, since they alone
afforded a legal basis, and because Luther's propositions to the
contrary — on secret marriages, for instance — lacked any general
recognition. The result of Luther's opposition to the consis
tories was, that, so long as he lived, they remained without any
definite instructions, devoid of the authority which had been
promised them, and without the coercive powers they so much
needed ; for the nonce they were spiritual courts without any
outward powers of compulsion, the latter being retained by the
sovereign to use at his discretion.

After Luther's death things were changed. The consistories
both in the Saxon Electorate and in most other places where they
had been copied became exclusively organs of Church government
by the State, though still composed of theologians and lawyers.
In 1579 and 1580 the end which Luther had foreseen arrived.
" The last things became, as a matter of fact, worse than the
first," as he himself had predicted, nay, as the result of his own
action ; Satan has introduced " into the Church the counsels
and the authority of government officials " (above, p. 182).

This change, which in reality was the realisation of the ideas
of Jonas, Melanchthon and Chancellor Briick, leads Rud. Sohm,
after having portrayed in detail the circumstances, to exclaim :
" The sovereign as head of the Church ! How can such a thing
be even imagined ? The Church of Christ, governed solely by
the word of Christ . . . and by command of the ruler of the
land."2 Speaking of the disorder in Luther's Church, which

1 /&., p. 623. 2 16., p. 618.

THE CONSISTORIES 185

recognised no canon law, the Protestant canonist says : " Canon
law was needed to assist the Word ; well, it came, but only to
establish the lord of the land as lord also of the Church." " The
State government of the Church is in contradiction with the
Lutheran profession of faith." " If, however, the Church is
determined to be ruled by force, then the ruler must be the
secular authority."1

The secular authorities to which Protestantism looked
for support had been well organised throughout the Empire
by the League of Schmalkalden. Subsequent to 1535 the
warlike alliance had been extended for a further ten years.
In 1539 the state of things became so threatening, th'at
Luther feared lest the Catholic princes should attack the
Protestants. In a sermon he referred to the " fury of Satan
amongst the blinded Papists who incite the Emperor and
other kings against the Evangel " ; he, however, also added,
that " we, by our boundless malice and ingratitude, have
called down the wrath of God." They ought to pray,
" that the Emperor might not turn his arms against us who
have the pure Word of Christ."2 As a matter of fact, how
ever, the Emperor and the Empire were not in a position
even to protect themselves against the wanton behaviour of
the innovators.

Amongst the outward provisions made for the future
benefit of the new Church, the League of Schmalkalden
deserves the first place. In the very year before his death
Luther took steps to ensure the prolongation of this armed
alliance.3

Among the efforts made at home to improve matters
a place belongs to Luther's attempts to introduce a more
frequent use of excommunication.

1 Ib., p. 632. Sohm's standpoint is, that a Church with powers of
self-government or with a " canon law," as he calls it, is practically
unthinkable. Cp. Carl Miiller, " Die Anfange der Konsistorialver-
fassung in Deutschland " (Hist. Zeitschr. Bd. 102, 3. Folge Bd. 6,
p. 1 ff.). He too arrives at the conclusion, contrary to many previously
held views, viz. that it was only gradually in the course of the 16th
century that the consistories changed, from organs of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, into organs of State government of the Church. Cp. also
O. Mejer, " Zum KR. des Reformations] ahrh.," 1891, p. 1 ff.
" Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 66.

3 " Corp. ref.," 5, p. 720 sq. Memorandum as to whether the
Schmalkalden League should continue, etc., March, 1545, signed by
him first. Cp. " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 374.

186 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Luther seeks to introduce the so-called
Lesser Excommunication

The introduction of the ban engrossed Luther's atten
tion more particularly after 1539, but without any special
results. In 1541 we find the question raised under rather
peculiar circumstances in one of the numerous letters in
which Luther complains of the secular authorities. At
Nuremberg, Wenceslaus Link had threatened certain persons
of standing with excommunication, whereupon one of the
town-councillors hurled at him the opprobrious epithet of
" priestling." Full of indignation, Luther wrote : " It is
true the civil authorities ever have been and always will be
enemies of the Church. . . . God has rejected the world
and, of the ten lepers, scarcely one takes His side, the rest
go over to the prince of this world." " Excommunication is
part of the Word of God." If they look upon our preaching
as the Word of God then it is a disgrace that they should
refuse to hear of excommunication, despise the ministers of
the Word and hate the God Whom they have confessed ;
they wickedly blaspheme in thus hurling the term
' priestling ' at His ministers."1

Here we get a glimpse of the difficulty which attended
the introduction of the ban : " They refuse to hear of ex
communication . ' '

With the Greater Excommunication which involved civil
disabilities, and in particular exclusion to some extent from
social intercourse, Luther had no sympathy ; he was in
terested in the reintroduction merely of the Lesser Ex
communication prohibiting the excommunicate to take part
in public worship, or at least to receive the Supper or to
stand as godparent. In his viewT the Greater Excommunica
tion was a matter for the sovereign and did not in the least
concern the ministers of the Church ; this he points out in
his Schmalkalden Articles.2 He even was inclined to look
upon any such action of the ruler with a jealous eye ; from
anything of the sort it were better for the sovereign to abstain

1 To Wenceslaus Link, Sep. 8, 1541, " Briefe," 5, p. 399.

2 Pars 3, art. 9 : " Maiorem excommunicationem, quam papa ita
nominal, non nisi civilem poenam esse ducimus non pertinentem ad
nos ministros ecclesice" " Symbol. Biicher," ed. Miiller-Kolde10,
p. 323.

LESSER EXCOMMUNICATION 187

for fear of any awkward confusion of the spiritual with the
secular power.1

The "Unterricht der Visitatorn," printed in 1528, had
already suggested to the ministers the use of a kind of
Lesser Excommunication, but, in the absence of anything
definite, the proposal remained practically a dead letter.
We learn, however, that Luther pronounced his first ban of
this sort against some alleged witches.2 Subsequently he
had strongly urged at the Court of the Elector that the
authorities should at least threaten gross contemners of
religion with " exile and punishment " as in the case of
blasphemers, and that then the pastors, after instruction
and admonition had proved of no avail, should proceed
to exclude such men from church membership3 as " heathen
to be shunned." When mentioning this he fails to state
whether or to what extent his proposal was carried out.4 On
the other hand, he often declares that the actual state
of the masses rendered quite impossible any ordering of
ecclesiastical life according to the Gospel ; he is also fond
of speaking of the danger there would be of falling back
into the Popish regulations abolished by the freedom of the
Gospel, were disciplinary measures reintroduced.

What moved Luther in 1538 to advocate the use of the
ban was, first, the action of the Elector's haughty Captain
and Governor, Hans Metzsch at Wittenberg, who, in addition
to Luther's excommunication, was threatened with dis
missal from his office, or, as Luther expresses it, with the
Greater Excommunication of the ruler (1538), and, secondly,
the doings of a Wittenberg burgher who (Feb., 1539)
dared to go to the Supper in spite of having committed
homicide. In the case of Metzsch a form of minor ex
communication was resorted to, Luther declaring invalid

1 To Tileman Schnabel and the other Hessian clergy, June 26,
1533, " Brief wechsel," 9, p. 317 : " Hoc sceculo excommunicatio maior
ne potest quidem in nostrum potestatem redigi, et ridiculi fteremus, ante
vires, hanc tentantes. Nam quod vos sperare videmini, ut executio vel
per ipsum principem fiat, valde incertum est, nee vellem politicum magis-
tratum in id officii misceri,^ etc.

2 N. Paulus, " Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess," 1911, p. 32, with
reference to " Luthers Werke," Weim. ed., 29, p. 539, where the note
of the Wittenberg Deacon, George Rorer to Luther's sermon of Aug. 22
of that year says : " Hcec prima fuit excommunicatio ab ipso pronun-
tiata"

3 Luther to Leonhard Beier, 1533, " Brief wechsel," 9, p. 365.

4 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 275.

188 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the absolution and permission to communicate granted by
the Deacon Froschel ; whether or not, after this, he pro
nounced a further excommunication, this much is certain,
viz. that, not long after the pair were reconciled.1

Many of the well-disposed on Luther's side were in favour
of the ban as a disciplinary measure ; others were intensely
hostile to it. Of his latest intention, Luther speaks at some
length in a sermon of Feb. 23, 1539. He there explains how
the whole congregation must be behind the clergy in en
forcing the ban ; they were to be notified publicly of any
man who proved obstinate and were to pray against him ;
then was to follow the formal expulsion from the congrega
tion ; re-admission to public worship was also to take place
publicly.

The plan of using the ban as a disciplinary measure was,
however, brought to nought by the efforts of the Court and
the lawyers, who wished all proceedings of the sort to
devolve upon the government as represented in the con
sistories.2 Luther also encountered the further difficulty,
that, in many cases, the ban was simply ignored, even
greater scandal arising out of this public display of contempt.
Hence, owing to his experience, he came to enjoin the
greatest caution.

To his former pupil, Anton Lauterbach, preacher at Pirna, he
sent the following not over-confident instructions : " Hesse's
example of the use of excommunication pleases me. If you can
establish the same thing, well and good. But the centaurs and
harpies of the Court will look at it askance. May the Lord be
our help ! Everywhere licence and lawlessness continue to spread
amongst the people, but it is the fault of the secular authorities." 3

The example of Hesse to which Luther referred was the
Hessian " Regulations for church discipline," enacted in 1539
at the instance of Bucer, in which, amongst other things, pro
vision was made for excommunication. So-called " elders,"
appointed conjointly by the town authorities and the congrega
tion, were to watch over the faith and morals of all, preachers
inclusive ; to them, together with the preacher, it fell, after

1 Cp. the passages quoted, ib., p. 675, and Lauterbach, " Tagebuch,"
p. 167.

2 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 291 aqq. Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 2,
p. 440.

3 On April 2, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 550. Cp. " Werke," Erl. ed.,
59, pp. 162 ff., 159 f . ; "We must set up excommunication again."
In the latter passage he speaks of his action against the Wittenberg
Commandant, Hans v. Metzsch.

LESSER EXCOMMUNICATION 189

seeking advice of the Superintendent, to pronounce the ban over
the obdurate sinner. In the Saxon Electorate, however, so Luther
hints, this would hardly be feasible on account of the attitude of
the authorities and the utter lawlessness of the people.

In 1538 the Elector himself had well put the difficulty which
would face any such disciplinary measure : "If only people
could be found who would let themselves be excommunicated ! "
He had, as Jonas related at Luther's table, listened devoutly to
the sermon at Zerbst and then expressed himself strongly on the
universal decline in morals, the " outrageous wickedness, gluttony
and drunkenness," etc. ; he had also said that excommunication
was necessary, but had then uttered the despairing words just
quoted. 1

Yet in spite of all Luther still continued at times to hold up
the ban and its consequences as a threat : "I shall denounce
him from the pulpit as having been placed under the ban "
this of a burgher who had absented himself from the Sacrament
for fifteen years — " and will give notice that he is to be looked
upon as a dog ; if, after this, anyone holds intercourse or has
anything to do with him, he will do so at his own risk ; if he dies
he is to be buried on the rubbish-heap like a dog ; we formally make
him over to the authorities for their justice and their laws to do
their worst on him."2 — " As for our usurers, drunkards, libertines,
whoremongers, blasphemers and scoffers," he says, " they do
not require to be put under the ban, as they have done so them
selves ; they are in it already up to their ears. . . . When they
are about to die, no pastor or curate may attend them, and when
they are dead let the hangman drag them out of the town to the
carrion heap. . . . Since they wish to be heathen, we shall look
upon them as such."3

Such self-imposed excommunication was so frequent that the
other, viz. that to be imposed by the preacher, was but rarely
needed. — "This is the true and chief reason why the ban has
everywhere fallen into disuse," Luther declares, echoing the
Elector, " because real Christians are everywhere so few, so small
a body and so insignificant in number."4 He too could exclaim
with a sigh : "If only there were people who would let themselves
be banned."

But even had such people been forthcoming, those who would
have to pronounce the ban were too often anything but perfect.
What was needed was prudent, energetic and disinterested
preachers, for, in order " to make use of the ban, we have need of
good, courageous, spiritual-minded ministers ; we have too many
who are immersed in worldly business." " I fear our pastors
will be over-bold and grasp at temporalities and at property."5

1 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 42. His words remind us of Luther's
own ; above, p. 139.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 59, p. 160.

3 /&., p. 179 f. Cp. Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 185 (in 1540).

4 Ib,, p. 169 f.

5 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 278 (in 1542-1543).

190 LUTHER THE REFORMER

The want of a Hierarchy. Ordinations

Sebastian Franck of Donauworth, a man responsible for
some fanatical doctrines, but a good observer of events,
wrote in 1534 in his " Cosmography " : " Every sect has its
own teacher, leader and priest, so that now no one can write
of the German faith, and a whole volume would be necessary,
and indeed would not suffice, to enumerate all their sects
and beliefs." " Men will and must have a Pope," he says,
" they will steal one or dig one out of the earth, and if you
take one from them every day they will soon find a new
one."1

It was not, however, exactly a " Pope " that the various
sects desired ; the great and commanding name of the
author of the schism could endure none other beside it, quite
apart from the impossibility of anything of the sort being
realised. On the other hand, the appointment of bishops to
the new Churches, i.e. the introduction of a kind of hierarchy,
had been discussed since about 1540.

Luther saw well enough what a firm foundation the
Church of the " Papists " possessed in its episcopate. Would
not the introduction of eminent Lutheran preachers into the
old German episcopal sees and their investment with the
secular authority and quality of bishops, serve to strengthen
the cause of the Evangel where it was weakest ? The
Superintendents did not suffice, though these officers, first
introduced in the Saxon Visitation of 1527, held a post of
supervision duly recognised in the Church.

:' The Papists boast of their bishops," said Luther, " and of
their spiritual authority though it is contrary to God's ordin
ances."2 " They are all set on retaining the bishops, and simply
want to reform them."3 " In Germany the bishops are wealthy
and powerful, they have a position and authority and they rule
of their own power."4 " If only we had one or two bishops on
our side, or could induce them to come over to us ! "5

On Ascension Day, May 15, 1539, we are told that " Luther
dined with his Elector and assisted at a council. It was there
resolved to maintain the bishops in their authority, if only they
would renounce the Pope and were pious persons devoted to the
Gospel, like Speratus. In that case, said Luther, we shall grant

1 " Kosmographie," Bl. 44', 163. Janssen, "Hist, of the German
People " (Engl. Trans.), v., p. 535.

2 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 2, p. 122. 3 Ib., 1, p. 322.

4 Ib., 3, p. 306. 5 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 367, Table-Talk.

THE NEW HIERARCHY 191

them the right and the power to ordain ministers. When Melanch-
thon attempted to dissuade him, pointing out that it would be
difficult to make sure of them by examination, he replied : " They
are to be tested by our people and then consecrated by the laying
on of hands, just as I am now a bishop."1 Instead of the words
" as I am now a bishop " a more likely rendering is, " as we have
already done as bishops here at Wittenberg."2 The resolution
indicated would seem to have been merely provisional and
non-committal, possibly a mere project. Nor is it likely that
Melanchthon can have been very averse to it.

As a matter of fact, Luther had, like a bishop, already ordained
or inducted into office such men as had been " called " to the
ministry, viz. by the congregations or the authorities ; this he
did for the first time in 1525 in the case of George Rorer, who had
been called to the archdiaconate of Wittenberg. The ordination
took place with imposition of hands and prayer. Since 1535
there existed a Wittenberg oath of ordination to be taken by
the preachers and pastors who should be appointed, by which
they bound themselves to preserve and to teach the " Catholic "
faith as taught at Wittenberg.3

Luther did not think that any consecration at the hands of
the existing episcopate was necessary for a new bishop ;4 such
necessity was incompatible with his conception of the Church,
the hierarchy and the common priesthood ; as for the Sacrament
of Orders in the usual sense of the word, it no longer existed.

A welcome opportunity for setting up a Protestant " bishop "
was presented to the Elector of Saxony and to Luther when the
bishopric of Naumburg-Zeitz fell vacant (above, p. 165 f.).

Johann Frederick, the Elector, not satisfied with his rights as
protector, laid claim also to actual sovereignty, and as the inno
vations had, as stated above, already secured a footing in
Naumburg, he determined to introduce a Lutheran preacher as
bishop and to seize upon the rights and lands in spite of the
Chapter and larger part of the nobility still being true to the
Catholic faith. He appealed to the fact that the kings of England,
Denmark and Sweden, and likewise the Duke of Prussia, had set
their bishops in "order."5 The noble and scholarly Julius
Pflug, whom wisely the Chapter at once elected to the vacant see,
was, as related above, never to be allowed to ascend the episcopal
throne.

1 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 306. In the statement the year
given is uncertain. " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 368 : " Anno 34," etc. ;
elsewhere 1543. 2 Rebenstock, in Bindseil, 1. c.

3 P. Drews, " Die Ordination, Priifung und Lehrverpflichtuiig der
Ordinanden in Wittenberg" ("Deutsche Zeitschr. fur KR."), 15, 1905,
pp. 66 ff., 274 ft'., particularly p. 281 ff.

4 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 22 f. Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 80 :
" Doctor dixit : Nos qui prcedicamus Evangelium, habemus potestatem
ordinandi ; papa et episcopi neminem possunt ordinare " (a. 1540).
P. 226 : " Doctor ad Cellarium ; Vos cstis episcopus, quemadmodum
ego sum papa " (a. 1540). Johannes Cellarius was Superintendent at
Dresden. * janssen, ib. (Engl. Trans.), vi., 181 ff.

192 LUTHER THE REFORMER

4. Consecration of Nicholas Amsdorf as "Evangelical
Bishop" of Naumburg (1542)

At first Luther was loath under the circumstances to
advise the setting up in Naumburg of a bishop of the new
faith. To him and to his advisers the step appeared too
dangerous. Nevertheless, on hearing of the election of
Pflug, he wrote as follows to the Elector : These Naumburg
canons " are desperate people and the devil's very own.
But what cannot be carried off openly, may be won by
waiting. Some day God will let it fall into your Electoral
Highness's hands, and the devil's wiseacres will be caught
in their own wisdom."1

When, however, the Elector obstinately insisted on
putting into execution his plan, contrary to justice and to
the laws of the Empire as it was, and when his agents had
already begun to govern the new territory, Luther's views
and those of the Wittenberg theologians gradually changed.
It was difficult, they wrote, to " map out beforehand the
order " of the German Church ; the question whether they
would have bishops, or do without, had not yet been
decided ; meanwhile the Prince had better establish a
consistory. Later on, however, they advised the appoint
ment of a bishop, for the Church cannot be without its
bishop and the Chapter had forfeited its rights ; there was,
nevertheless, to be a real and genuine election at which the
faithful were to be represented.2

Luther arid his friends wanted to have as bishop Prince
George of Anhalt, Canon of Magdeburg and Merseburg, who
shared the Wittenberg views.

To the Elector, however, who had other plans of his own,
it seemed, that, owing to his position, this Prince might not
prove an easy tool in his sovereign's hands. Nicholas
Amsdorf, preacher at Magdeburg, who for long years had
been Luther's associate, was accounted one of his most
determined supporters and, as time went on, even gained
for himself the reputation of being " more Lutheran than
Luther," appeared a more likely candidate. It was no
difficult matter to secure Luther's consent. He gave
Amsdorf the following testimonial : " He was richly

1 Letter of Jan. 24, 1541, " Brief wechsel," 13, p. 253 f.

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 553 ff.

AMSDORF'S CONSECRATION 193

endowed by God, learned and proficient in Holy Scripture,
more so than the whole crowd of Papists ; also a man of
good life and faithful and upright at heart." The fact that
he was unmarried was a recommendation for the post, even
from the point of view of " Papal law."1

It has already been mentioned that Amsdorf was later on
to write the book " That good works are harmful to Salva
tion," and that, previously, about 1525, he was active in
making matches between the escaped nuns and the leaders
of the innovations. Melanchthon, writing to Johannes
Ferinarius, says : " He was an adulterer, and lay with the
wife of his deacon at Magdeburg " ; of this we hear from
the Luther researcher J. K. Seidemann, who quotes from
a Dresden MS.2

The Ceremony at Naumburg

The 20 Jan., 1542, was appointed for the " consecration "
of the bishop. Two days before, the Elector of Saxony made
his solemn entry into the little town on the Saale escorted by
some three hundred horsemen, the gentlemen all clothed in
decorous black. His brother Johann Ernest and Duke
Ernest of Brunswick were in his train. Luther, Melanchthon
and Amsdorf also took part in the procession. It was a
mere formality when the Chapter (or rather the magistrates
of the towns of Zeitz and Naumburg, and the knights,
though only such as were Protestant) were asked to cast
their votes in favour of Amsdorf ; in reality the will of
Johann Frederick was law. Their scruples concerning the
oath they had taken under the former bishop, of everlasting
fidelity to the Catholic Chapter were, at their desire, dealt
with by Luther himself, who argued that no oath taken by
the sheep to the wolves could be of any account, and that
no duty " could be binding which ran counter to God's
commandment to do away with idolatrous doctrine."3

The " consecration " then took place on the day ap
pointed, within the venerable walls of the mediaeval
Cathedral of Naumburg, ostensibly according to the usage
of the earliest ages, when the Church had not as yet fallen

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 262, p. 126, in the " Exempel " (see below,
p. 195).

2 " Zeitschr. f. KG.," 3, p. 302, according to MS. Dresdense B
193, 4. 3 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 554 f.

v. — o

194 LUTHER THE REFORMER

away from the Gospel. The Blessing and imposition of
hands were to signify that the Church of Naumburg, i.e. the
whole flock, was wedded to its bishop ; he too, in like
manner, would ceremonially proclaim his readiness to take
charge of this same flock. The bishops of the adjoining
sees, who, in accordance with the custom of antiquity
should have assembled to perform the consecration, were
represented by three superintendents and one apostate
Abbot. " At this consecration [to quote Luther's own
words] the following bishops, or as we shall call them
parsons, shall officiate : Dr. Nicholas Medler, parson and
super-attendant of Naumburg, Master George Spalatin,
parson and super-attendant at Aldenburg [the former
preacher at the Court of the Elector], Master Wolfgang
Stein, parson and super-attendant at Weissenfels "* (also
Abbot Thomas of St. George's near Naumburg).

Luther is silent concerning the two requirements which,
according to the olden views, were the most essential for the
consecration of a bishop, viz. the ritual consecration, which
only a consecrated bishop could impart, and the jurisdiction
or authority to rule, only to be derived from bishops yet
more highly placed in the hierarchy, or from the Pope.
Both these Luther himself had to supply.

At the outset of the ceremony Nicholas Medler announced
the deed which was about to be undertaken " through God's
Grace," to which the people assented by saying "Amen."
After this Luther preached a sermon on the Bible-text
addressed to the Church's heads : " Take heed to yourselves
and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed
you bishops to rule the church of God which He hath pur
chased with His own blood " (Acts xx. 28). After the
sermon Amsdorf knelt before the altar surrounded by the
four assistants and the " Veni Creator" was sung. Luther
admonished the future bishop concerning his episcopal
duties, and, on the latter giving a satisfactory answer, in
common with the four others, he laid his hands on his head ;
after this Luther himself offered a prayer for him. The
" Te Deum " was then sung in German. Hence the bishop's
consecration took place in much the same way as the
ordination of the preachers, viz. by imposition of hands
and prayer.

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 262, p. 125, in the " Exempel."

AMSDORF'S CONSECRATION 195

Luther himself had some misgivings concerning the step
and its far-reaching consequences.

He wrote not long after to Jacob Probst, pastor at Bremen,
whom he here addresses as bishop : "I wonder you have
not heard the news, how, namely, on Jan. 20, Dr. Nicholas
Amsdorf was ordained by the heresiarch Luther bishop of
the church of Naumburg. It was a daring act and will
arouse much hatred, animosity and indignation against us.
I am hard at work hammering out a book on the subject.
What the result will be God knows." He adds : " Jonas is
working successfully for the kingdom of Christ at Halle
[where he had been appointed pastor] in spite of the accursed
Heinz and Meinz [Duke Henry of Brunswick and Arch
bishop Albert of Mayence]. My own lordship and Katey my
Moses greet you and your spouse. Pray for me that I may
die at the right hour, for I am sick of this life, or rather of
this unspeakably bitter death."1

Luther's booklet on the Consecration of Bishops

The bitter work which Luther, at the request of the
Elector and the Naumburg Estates, "hammered out," in
vindication of this act of violence, appeared in the same
year, i.e. 1542, under the title " Exempel einen rechten
Christlichen Bischoff zu weihen."2

The title itself shows that the pamphlet was no mere attempt
to justify himself and those who had taken part in the act but
aims at something more ; Luther's apologia becomes a violent
attack ; a breach was to be made in the wall which so far had
hindered Protestants from appropriating the Catholic bishoprics
of Germany. " Our intention," says Luther quite plainly, " is
to establish an example to show how the bishoprics may be re
formed and governed in a Christian manner."3

The opening lines show that the book was intended to inflame
and excite the masses. The jocular tone blatantly contrasts with
the august subject of the episcopate and supplies a good
" example " of the author's mode of controversy. The work
begins : " Martin Luther, Doctor. We poor heretics have once
more committed a great sin against the hellish, unchristian
Church of our most fiendish Father the Pope by ordaining and
consecrating a bishop for the see of Naumburg without any
chrism, without even any butter, lard, fat, grease, incense,

1 On March 26, 1542, " Briefe," ed. De Wette, 5, p. 451 : " Venera-
bili in Domino viro lacobo Probst ecclesice Bremensis episcopo vero," etc.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 262, p. 93 ff. 3 Ib., p. 121.

196 LUTHER THE REFORMER

charcoal or any such-like holy things." Cheerfully indeed did he
own, acknowledge and confess this sin against those, who " have
shed our blood, murdered, hanged, drowned, beheaded, burnt,
robbed and driven us into exile, and inflicted on us every manner
of martyrdom, and now, with Meinz and Heinz, have taken to
sacking the land."

With a couple of Bible passages he bowls over the legal diffi
culties arising out of the expulsion of the bishop-elect and the
oath of the Estates : " Thou shalt have none other Gods before
me " ; " Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's
clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves," etc. We must
sweep away the " wolf -bishops whom the devil ordains and
thrusts in." " Oath and obedience stand untouched," for they
" could take no [valid] oath to the wolf."1 The further question,
" whether it was right to accept consecration or ordination from
such damnable heretics [i.e. as he], was disposed of by saying,
that the Evangel was no heresy, and that though he understood
Holy Scripture but little, yet at any rate he understood it far
better — and also knew better how to consecrate a Christian
bishop — than the Pope and all his men, who one and all were
foes of Holy Writ and of the Word of God."2

This screed stands undoubtedly far below many of Luther's
other productions. It tends to be diffuse and to harp tediously
on the same ideas. Luther had already overwritten himself, and
when engaged on it was struggling with bad health, the fore
runner of his fatal sickness three years later. His disgust with
life spoiled his work.

The "Popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, canons and parsons"
he implores to look rather to the beam in their own eye, to the
" simony, favouritism, sharp practices, agreements, conventions
and other horrible vices " which prevailed at their own conse
crations," than at the mote in the eye of the Lutherans. " You
strainers at gnats and swallowers of camels, wipe yourselves
first — you know where I mean — before coming and telling us to
wipe our noses. It is not fitting that a sow should teach a dove
not to eat any unclean grain of corn while itself it loves nothing
better than to feed on the excreta which the peasants leave
behind the hedge. As for the rest you understand it well
enough."3 " Let us stop our ears and not listen to their shouting,
barking, bellowing, their complaints and their abuse," with
which I have " put up for many a year from Dr. Sow [Dr. Eck],
from Witzel, Tolpel, Schmid, from Dr. Dirtyspoon [Cochlaeus],
Tellerlecker, ' Briinzscherben,' Heinz and Meinz and whatever
else they may be. . . . The [Last] Day is approaching for which
we hope and which they must needs fear, however obstinately
they may affect to despise it. Against their defiance we pit ours ;
at least we may look forward to The Day with a happy, cheerful
conscience. On that day we shall be their judges, unless indeed
there is really no God in heaven or on earth as the Pope and his
followers believe."4

1 Ib., pp. 99, 100, 118, 113. 2 P. 124. 3 P. 125. * P. 115.

LETTERS TO AMSDORF 197

How little Luther really knew of the cunning policy of
his sovereign is plain from his assuring his reader in the
same booklet, apparently in the best of faith, that it was
no motive of self-interest that had led the Elector to inter
vene in the Naumburg business ; " the lands were to remain
the property of the see," the Elector did not wish " to
subjugate it, to deprive it of its liberty, or alienate it from
the Empire," etc.1 He declares that whatever reports
Julius Pflug was spreading to the contrary were a " stinking
lie." Yet the Elector had ousted the rightful occupant of
the see, as he had intended to do all along, and those who
ventured to oppose his commands he was to punish by
sequestration of lands and even by imprisonment.

The Protestant bishop was assigned a miserable pittance
of six hundred Gulden so that Amsdorf, as Luther declared,
had been better off at Magdeburg.2 Practically nothing
was done by the sovereign for the ordering of the Church.
Luther bewailed to Amsdorf : " The negligence of our
government gives me great concern. They so often take
rash steps and, then, when we are down in the mire, snore
idly and leave us on the lurch. I intend, however, to open
the ears of Dr. Pontanus [Chancellor Briick] and of the
Prince and give them some plain speaking."3

" How is this ? " Luther wrote about this time to Justus
Jonas, who, at Halle, had gone through much the same
experience, " We pray against the Turk, we are the teachers
of the people and their intercessors with God and yet those
who wish to be accounted ' Evangelicals ' rashly excite the
wrath of God by their avarice, their robbing and plundering
of the Church. The people let us go on teaching, praying
and suffering while they heap sin upon sin ! "4

Excerpts from Luther's Letters to the New " Bishop "

Luther's correspondence with his friend Amsdorf affords
an instructive psychological insight into the working of his
mind. During those last years of his life he took refuge
more and more in a certain fanatical mysticism. He sought
comfort in the thought of his exalted calling and in a kind

1 P. 126 f. 2 Feb. 6, 1542, " Briefe," 5, p. 432.

3 Letter of Jan. 13, 1543, ib., p. 532.

4 Letter of July 23, 1542, ib., p. 485.

198 LUTHER THE REFORMER

of inspiration ; yet all he could do availed but little against
his inward gloom.

Amsdorf, the whilom Catholic priest, found little pleasure in
his episcopal status and felt bitterly both his isolation and the
contrast between a pomp that was irksome to him and the real
emptiness of his position ; Luther, accordingly, in the letters
of consolation he wrote him, appealed to the Divine inspiration,
which had led to his appointment as bishop. The consecration
was surely undertaken at the express command of God which
no man may oppose. " In these Divine matters," he writes,
"it is far safer to allow oneself to be carried away than to take
any active part ; this is what happened in your case, and yours
is a noble and unusual example. We are never in worse case
than when we fancy we are acting with discernment and under
standing, because then self-complacency slinks in ; but the
blinder we are, the more God acts through us. He does more
than we can think or understand." We have here the same
principle to which he had been so fond of appealing in the
early days of his career so as to be able to attribute to God the
unforeseen and far-going consequences of his deeds, and to
reassure himself and urge himself on.

" We must never seek to know," he said to Amsdorf, " what
God wills to accomplish through us." " The most foolish thing is
the wisest."1 " God rules the world by means of fools and
children, He will finish His work [in you] by our means, just as
in the Book of Proverbs (xxx. 2), where we are called the greatest
fools on earth."2

" It is the counsel of a fool," so Luther said in his " Exempel "
of his intentions regarding the bishops' sees, " and I am a fool.
But because it is God's counsel, therefore it is at least the counsel
of a wise fool."3

This pseudo-mystical bent though usual enough in Luther
seems to have become very much stronger in him at that time.
To this his sad experiences contributed. More than ever con
vinced, on the one hand, that everything in the world was of the
devil and that " Satan and his whole kingdom, full of a terrible
wrath, were harassing " the Elector, as he declares in a letter
to Amsdorf,4 he tends, on the other, to fall back with a fanatical
enthusiasm on the Evangel " revealed " to him. More than one
statement which is no mere empty form, shows that he was
really anxious to find consolation in the Divine truths ; again
and again he strove to rouse himself to a firm confidence. He is
also more diligent in his peculiar sort of prayer and strongly
urges his friends, notably Amsdorf to whom he frankly imparts
his fears and hopes, to seek for help in prayer. His words are
really those of one who feels in need of assistance.

1 To Amsdorf after Jan. 20, 1542, ib., p. 430.

2 To Amsdorf, Feb. 12, 1542, ib., p. 433.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 262, p. 123.

4 Jan. 8, 1546, " Brief e," 5, p. 773.

LETTERS TO AMSDORF 199

Amidst the trials of increasing bodily ailments and in other
temporal hardships he knows how to encourage his life's partner,
Catharine Bora, whose anxiety distressed him. : " You want to
provide for your God," he says to her in one of his letters, " just
as though He were not all-powerful and able to create ten Dr.
Martins should your old one get drowned in the Saale, or smothered
in the coal-hole or elsewhere. Do not worry me with your cares ;
I have a better caretaker than even you or all the angels. He
lies in the crib and sucks at a Virgin's breast, but nevertheless is
seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Hence be
at peace, Amen."1 " Do you pray," he admonishes her not long
after, " and leave God to provide, for it is written : ' Cast thy
care upon the Lord and He shall sustain thee,' Ps. lv."2

Such ready words of encouragement do not however prevent
him, when dealing with other more stout-hearted friends who
were aware of the precarious state of the cause, from giving full
voice to the depression, nay despair, which overwhelmed him.
The following example from his correspondence with the " bishop "
of Naumburg is characteristic.

After an attempt to parry the charge brought against him of
being responsible for the public misfortunes which had arisen
through the religious revolt, and to reassure Amsdorf, and
incidentally himself too, he goes on gloomily to predict the
coming chastisement : " Were we the cause of all the evils that
have befallen us [and others], how much blood should we have
already shed ! ... It is, however, Christ's business to see to
this, since He Himself by His Word has called forth so much evil
and such great hatred on the part of the devil. All this, so they
fancy, is a scandal and a disgrace to our teaching ! Nevertheless
ingratitude for God's proffered grace is so great, the contempt
for the Word goes such lengths, vice, avarice, usury, luxury,
hatred, perfidy, envy, pride, godlessness and blasphemy are
increasing by such leaps and bounds that it is hard to believe
God can much longer deal indulgently and patiently with
Germany. Either the Turk will chastise us [" while we brood
full of hate over the wounds of our brethren "] or some inner mis
fortune [civil war] will break over us. It is true we feel the
chastisement, we pay the penalty in grief and tears, but yet we
remain sunk in terrible sins whereby we grieve the Holy Ghost
and rouse the anger of God against us."

What faithful Catholics feared for him owing to his obstinacy,
this, in his sad blindness, he now predicts for the foes of his
Evangel. "Who can wonder," he cries, "should God, as Holy
Scripture says, laugh at our destruction in spite of the weeping
and sighing of the guilty. . . . The worst end awaits the im
penitent."

" Let none of us expect the least good of the future. Our sins
cry aloud to heaven and on earth and there is no hope of any
good. Now, in a time of peace, Germany affords the eye a terrible

1 Feb. 7, 1546, " Briefe," 5, p. 787.

2 Feb. 10, 1546, ib., p. 790.

200 LUTHER THE REFORMER

spectacle, seeing that God's honour is outraged everywhere by
so many wicked men and that the churches and schools are being
destroyed. . . . Meanwhile, we at least [the despised preachers
of the truth] will bewail our own sins and those of Germany ;
we will pray and humble our souls, devote ourselves to our office,
teaching, exhorting and consoling. What else can we do ?
Germany has become blind and deaf and rises up in insolence ;
we cannot hope against hope."

" But do you be brave and give thanks to the Lord for the
holy calling He has deigned to bestow upon us ; He has willed
to sunder us from these reprobates, who are bent on ruining
others too, to preserve us clean and blameless in His pure and
holy Word, and will continue so to preserve us. Let us, however,
weep for the foes of the cross of Christ, even though they mock
at our tears. Though we be filled with grief on account of their
misery still our grief will be assuaged by the holy joy which will
attend the again-rising of the Lord on the day of our salvation,
Amen."

He concludes this curious letter, written on Easter Sunday,
with the following benediction : " May the Lord be with you to
support and comfort you together with us. Outside of Christ, in
the kingdom of the raging devil, there is nothing but sadness to
be seen or heard." Thus, at the close, he returns to the opening
thought suggested by the very object of the letter. Amsdorf had
deplored the \varlike acts undertaken by Duke Maurice of Saxony
against the Elector. Luther, in turn, had informed him, that
" here, we are quite certain that what the Duke is doing is the
direct work of Satan."1

5. Some Further Deeds of Violence. Fate of Ecclesiastical
Works of Art

End of the Bishopric of Meissen

The Elector of Saxony, after having been so successful in
seizing the bishopric of Naumburg, sought to obtain control
of that of Meissen also.

Here, however, there was another Protestant claimant in
the field in the person of the young Duke Maurice of Saxony,
successor of the late Duke Henry. As for the chartered
rights, temporal and spiritual, of the bishop of Meissen they
were simply ignored. The Elector, by a breach of the peace,
sent a military force on March 22, 1542, to occupy the
important town of Wurzen, where there was a collegiate
Chapter depending on Meissen. The Chapter was "re
formed " by compulsion, the prebendaries who were faithful

1 April 13, 1542, ib., p. 464.

SEIZURE OF MEISSEN 201

to the Church being threatened with deposition and corporal
penalties, and many sacred objects being flung out of their
church. When eventually war threatened to break out
between the two branches of the house of Saxony, Landgrave
Philip of Hesse stepped in as mediator in the interests of
the new Evangel. He twice sent express messengers to
summon Luther to intervene. But, even before this, the
latter, horrified at the prospect of the " dreadful disgrace "
which civil war between two Evangelical princes would
bring upon the Evangel, had addressed a long and earnest
letter of admonition to both combatants : It was the devil
who was seeking to kindle a great fire from such a spark ;
both sides should have recourse to law instead of falling
upon each other over so insignificant a matter, like tipsy
yokels fighting in a tap-room over a broken glass ; if they
refused to do this, he would take the part of the one who
first suffered acts of violence at the hands of the other and
would free all the latter's followers from their duty and
oath of obedience in the war.1 The writing, which was
intended for publication and to be forwarded " to both
armies," was only half -printed when the Landgrave inter
vened. The author withdrew it in order to be able to take
up a different attitude in the struggle and to proceed at once
to denounce Maurice.

Luther it is true admitted to Briick, the electoral chancellor,
that certain people at Wittenberg did not consider the Elector's
claims at all well-founded.2 At the Landgrave's instigation he
also addressed a friendly request to the Elector, " not to be too
hard and stiff " ; of the temporal rights of the case he was
ignorant ; seeing, however, that there was a dispute the question
could not be clear ; at any rate Duke Maurice was acting wrong
fully in " pressing his rights by so bloodthirsty an undertaking.
At times there may be a good reason for pulling one's foot out
of the tracks of a mad dog or for burning a couple of tapers at the
devil's altar."3 But on the whole he took the part of his Elector
against Maurice, who, even before this, had appeared to him lax
and wavering in his support of the new faith. In his history of
Maurice of Saxony, G. Voigt gives as his opinion that : "In this
matter Luther neither showed himself unbiassed nor did he act
uprightly and honourably."4

1 To the Elector and the Duke, April 7, 1542, " Werke," Erl. ed.,
56, p. 15 ff. il Briefe," ed. De Wette, 6, p. 304 ff.

2 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 567.

3 April 9, 1542, " Werke," Erl. ed., 56, p. liii. " Briefe," ib., p. 311.

4 Leipzig, 1874, p. 28 f.

202 LUTHER THE REFORMER

To Amsdorf, who had helped to fan the flame of mutual hate,
Luther speaks of Duke Maurice as " a proud and furious young
fellow, in whom we undoubtedly see the direct work of Satan " ;
it is not he (Luther) or Amsdorf who have to reproach themselves
with the conflagration ; he is to be quite at rest on this score.
Rather, it is Christ Who — by His Word — has given rise to the
mischief and to all the hatred of the demons against us. His
Word alone is to blame, not we, that so many confessors of our
faith have been slain, drowned and burnt. " In vain do they
impute to us the bloody deeds which have taken place owing
to Miinzer, Carlstadt, Zwingli and the [Anabaptist] King of
Minister."

" At first Maurice was not regarded by Luther, Melanchthon
and most of their contemporaries as of such importance, whether
for good or for evil, as he soon after showed himself to be ; they
fancied him far more dependent on his nobles and councillors
than he really was."1 Luther thought he detected the evil
influence of the councillors in the twin businesses of Wurzen and
Meissen. In his reply to the Landgrave concerning the attempt
to bring the matter to a peaceful issue, without having as yet
examined the cause, he speaks of Duke Maurice as a " stupid
bloodhound."2 To his own Court he wrote, on April 12, as
though the Duke were without question in the wrong : " May
God strengthen, console and preserve my most Gracious Lord
and you all in His Grace and in a good conscience, and bring
down on the heads of the hypocritical bloodhound of Meissen
what Cain and Absalom, Judas and Herodes deserved. Amen
and again Amen, to the glory of His name Whom Duke Maurice
is outraging to the utmost by this abominable scandal, and
singing meanwhile so blasphemous a hymn of praise to the devil
and all the foes of God."3

In the meantime, owing to Philip's exertions, a com
promise was effected between the two parties ready for the
fray ; by this it was agreed that each should have a free
hand in one of the two portions of the diocese, the Elector
retaining Wurzen ; as for the defenceless bishop of Meissen,
who was not even informed of this, he had simply to bow
to his fate. Maurice, however, was so greatly angered that
he soon after abandoned the League of Schmalkalden and
began to make advances to the Emperor.

After the conclusion of peace " the Elector had all the
images in the chief church of Wurzen destroyed, except
those which were overlaid with gold or which represented
4 serious events,' and the rest buried in the vaults." The

1 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 568.

2 According to Luther's report to Briick, April 12, 1542, " Werke,"
Erl. ed., 56, p. liv., " Briefe," p. 314. 3 Ib.

DEEDS OF ROBBERY 203

new teaching was then introduced throughout the diocese.1
Maurice on his part carried off from the cathedral of Meissen,
which had fallen to his share, all the gold and silver vessels
richly studded with jewels and precious stones and all the
treasures of art. He was taking them, he said, under his
protection " because the times were so full of risk and
danger." After he had taken them into his " care " all
trace of them disappeared for all time.

0
Destruction of Church Property

The fate of the treasures of Meissen Cathedral resembles
that which befell the riches of many churches at that time.

We are still in possession of the inventory made by
Blasius Kneusel of Meissen which gives us a glimpse of the
wealth and magnificence of the treasures of mediaeval
German art and industry which perished in this way.

The list contains the following entries among others : " One
gold cross valued by Duke George at 1300 florins ; in it there is a
diamond valued at 16,000 florins, besides other precious stones
and pearls with which the cross is covered." " A second gold
cross, worth 6000 florins. A third is worth 1000 florins, besides
the precious stones and pearls of which the cross is full. I value
the gold table and the credence table, without the precious
stones, at 1000 florins in gold. The large bust of St. Benno
weighs 36| Ibs. ; it is set with valuable stones ; it was made
by order of the church and all the congregation contributed
towards it. The small cross with the medallions of the Virgin
Mary and St. John weighs about 50 Ibs."

The number of these treasures of art which fell a prey to the
plunderer amounted to fifty-one.2

Two years later Luther wrote to Duke Ernest of Saxony to
seek help on behalf of two fallen monks then studying theology
at Wittenberg : in order to support men who " may eventually
prove very useful " " the chalices and monstrances might well
be melted down."3

The ruthless handling of the Black Monastery at Wittenberg,
which had been bestowed on Luther after the dissolution of the
Augustinian community, was to set a bad example. The fittings
of the church there were scattered and the mediaeval images and

1 Burkhardt, " Gesch. der sachs. Kirchen- u. Schulvisitationen,
1524-1545," 1879, p. 209 f. Janssen, "Hist, of the German People"
(Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 192.

2 G. A. Arndt, " Archiv der sachs. Gesch.," 2, Leipzig, 1784-1786,
p. 333 ff. C. G. Gersdorf, " Urkundenbuch von Meissen," 3, Leipzig,
1867, p. 375 f. Janssen, ib., p. 193.

3 April 29, 1544, " Werke," Erl. ed., 56, p. 91 ; " Briefe," 5, p. 646.

204 LUTHER THE REFORMER

vestments which, though perhaps only of small material value,
would yet be carefully treasured by any museum to-day, were
calmly devoted by Luther to destruction.

" Now at last," he says, "I have sold the best of the pictures
that still remained, but did not get much for them, fifty florins
at the most, and with this I have clothed, fed and provided for
the nuns and the monks — the thieves and rascals." He had
already remarked that the best of the " church ornaments and
vessels " had gone ; at the " beginning of the Evangel every
thing had been laid waste " and " even to this very day they do
not cease from carrying off ... each man whatever he can
lay hands on."1

No one can adequately describe the material damage
which the Catholic parsonages and benefices, convents and
bishoprics had to suffer on their suppression. A simple list
of the spoliations from the hundreds of cases on record,
would give us a shocking picture of the temporal conse
quences involved in the ecclesiastical upheaval. Apart
from the injustice of thus robbing the churches and, inci
dentally, the numberless poor who looked to the Church for
help, it was regrettable that there was no other institution
ready to take the place of the olden Church, and assume
possession of the properties which fell vacant. The Catholic
Church was a firmly knit and well-established community,
capable of possessing property. The new Churches on the
contrary did not constitute an independent and united
body ; the universal priesthood, the invisibility of the
Church of Christ and its utter want of independence were
ideas altogether at variance with the legal conception of
ownership upon which, in the topsyturvydom of that age of
transition it was more than ever necessary to insist.

Hence the secular element had necessarily to assume the
guardianship of the property. But of the secular authorities,
which was to take control ? For these authorities, which
all were looking forward expectantly to their share of the
church property heaped up by their Catholic ancestors,
were not one but many : There was the sovereign with his
Court, the civil administration, the towns with their
councils, not to speak of other local claimants ; to make
the confusion worse there were the church patrons, the
trustees of monasteries, the founders of institutions, and
their heirs, and also those endowed with certain privileges

1 In Luther's household memoranda, " Brief e," 6, p. 326.

RIGHTS OF POSSESSION 205

under letters patent. Moreover, the leaders of the religious
innovations insisted that the property acquired was to be
devoted to the support of the preachers, the schools and
the poor. Hence to the above already lengthy list of
claimants must be added the preachers, or the consistories
representing them, likewise the administrators of the relief
funds, the governors of the schools, and the senates of the
universities which had to furnish the preachers.

The war- council of the town of Strasburg, in 1538,
addressed a letter to Luther concerning their prospects or
intention of securing a share of the church property there.
On Nov. 20 of that year he replied, peremptorily telling
them to do nothing of the sort ; under the conditions then
prevailing they must " de facto stand still." Yet no less
plain was his hint to them to warn Catholic owners " who
hold church property but pay no heed to the cure of souls,"
to amend and to accept the new Evangel ; if they " wished
to go," i.e. preferred banishment, so much the better,
otherwise they must once for all by some means be "at last
brought to see that further persistence in their wanton
ness " was out of question.1

To add to the general chaos in many places the powerful
nobles, as Luther frequently laments, without a shadow of
a right, set violent hands on the tempting possessions, and,
by entering into possession, frustrated all other claims.

The leading theologians of Wittenberg gradually gave up
in despair their attempts to interfere, and contented them
selves with exhortations to which nobody paid much heed.

They saw how the lion's share fell to the strongest, i.e. to
the Elector, and how everywhere the State took the pennies
of the devout and the poor, using them for purposes of its
own, which often enough had nothing whatever to do with
the Church.

Nowhere do we find any evidence to show that the
theologians made use of the authority on which on other
occasions they laid so much stress, or made any serious
attempt to check arbitrary action and to point out the
way to a just distribution, or to lay down some clear and
general rules in accordance with which the graduated claims
of the different competitors might have been settled. They
1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 55, p. 213 (" Brief wechsel," 12, p. 34).

206 LUTHER THE REFORMER

might at least have associated themselves with the lawyers
in the Privy Council and formulated some rule whereby
the rights of the State, of the towns and of the church
patrons could have been protected against the worst attacks
of the plunderers. But no check of this sort was imposed
by the theologians on the prevailing avarice and greed of
gain. It is plain that they despaired of the result, and,
possibly, silence may not have been the worst policy. No
one can be blind to the huge difficulties which attended
interference, but who was after all to blame for these and
so many other difficulties which had arisen in public order,
and which could be solved only by the use of force ?

When an exceptionally conscientious town-council sent a
messenger to Luther in 1544 to ask for advice and instruc
tions how to deal with the property of two monasteries
which had been suppressed, the " honourable, prudent and
beloved masters and friends " received from him only a
short and evasive answer : " We theologians have nothing
to do with this . . . such things must be decided by the
lawyers . . . our theology teaches us to obey the worldly
law, to protect the pious and to punish the wicked."1

If, however, the lawyers were to follow the jurisprudence
in which they had been trained, then they could but insist
upon the property being restored to its rightful owners,
who had never ceased to claim it for the Church, and had
even appealed to the imperial authority. Luther's reply
constituted a formal retreat from the domain of moral
questions, questions indeed which had become burning
largely through the action of his theologians. It was an
admission that their theology was of no avail to solve an
eminently practical question of ethics coming well within
its purview which was the safeguarding of the moral law,
and for which, indeed, this theology was itself responsible.
In this, however, as in so many other instances, they sowed
the wind, but when the whirlwind came they ran for shelter
to their theological cell.2

Still, the question of church property caused Luther so
much heart-burning in his old age that his death was
hastened thereby.

1 July 7, 1544, " Werke," ib., p. 104 f.

2 Cp. Luther's attitude at the time when the question of armed
resistance to the Emperor was mooted, vol. iii., 56 fi., and his views on
the relations of Church and State.

STATUES AND PICTURES 207

The lamentations wrung from him in 1538, his description
of himself as " tormented " and the " unhappiest of all
unhappy mortals,"1 were due in no small measure to the
rapacity he had seen in connection with the church lands.
The bulwarks he strove to erect against this disorder were
constantly being torn down afresh by the unevangelical
disposition of the Evangelicals, and yet he refused to admit,
even to himself, that he had been the first to open the way to
such arbitrary action. As in his own house he had set an
example of destruction of church property, so in his turn
he met with bitter experiences even in his own dwelling
and in the case of his own private concerns. His tenure of
the Black Monastery at Wittenberg was uncertain, and,
as already stated, hostile lawyers at Court even questioned
his right to dispose of his possessions by Will on the ground
that his marriage was null in law, whether canon or civil.
The Monastery had been given him by the Prince, and
Luther and Catherine Bora used it both as their residence
and as a boarding-house for lodgers. It had not, however,
been given to Luther's family, and from this the difficulty
arose. He was most careful to note down in his account
books the things that were to be Katey's inalienable property
on his death, but, when he was no more, Katey and her
children had in their turn to make acquaintance with the
poverty and vicissitudes endured by so many churchmen
whose means of livelihood had been filched from them.

Luther and the Images

Can the charge be brought against Luther's teaching of
being in part responsible for the outbreaks of iconoclastic
violence which accompanied the spread of the Reformation
in Germany ? Did his writings contribute to the destruction
of those countless, admirable and often costly creations of
art and piety which fell a prey to the blind fury of the
zealot, or to greed of gain ?

Assuredly he would, had he seen them, have disapproved
of many of the acts of vandalism which history tells us
were perpetrated against Catholic churches, monasteries

1 To Amsdorf, Nov. 25, 1538, " Briefe," 5, p. 136 (" Brief wechsel,"
11, p. 38) : " Vides, quantis premor oneribus. . . . Miserrimis miserior,
ut qui amplius nihil possum prce de/ectu

208 LUTHER THE REFORMER

and institutions. Generally speaking the ideas of Carlstadt
and Zwingli, wherever they gained the upper hand, proved
far more destructive to ecclesiastical works of art than
Luther's gentler admonitions against the veneration of
images. Nevertheless, his exhortations, though more
guarded, made their way among both the mighty and the
masses, and were productive of much harm.

He himself declared frankly, about the end of 1524, that
" by his writings he had done more harm to the images than
Carlstadt with all his storming and fanaticism will ever do."1
In the course of the next year he boasted of having " brought
contempt " on the images even before Carlstadt 's time. He
had repudiated the latter 's acts of violence and his ill-judged
appeal to the law of Moses ;2 on the other hand, he had
undermined the very foundations of image-worship by his
Evangelical doctrines ; this was a better kind of " storm
ing," for in this way those who once had bowed to images
now " refused to have any made." As much as the most
fanatical of the iconoclasts, he too wished to see the images.
" torn out of men's hearts, despised and abolished," but
he " destroyed them [the images] outwardly and also
inwardly,"3 and so went one better than Carlstadt, who
attacked them only from the outside.

He had, so he continues, speaking to the German people,
" consented " that the images should be " done away with
outwardly so long as this took place without fanaticism and
violence, and by the hand of the proper authorities."4 " We
drive them out of men's hearts until the time comes for them
to be torn down by the hands of those whose duty it is to do
this."5 Meanwhile, however, it was " every man's duty "
to " destroy them by the Evangel," " especially the images
of God and other idolatrous ones."6

In his Church-sermons he makes his own the complaint,
that, though these images which attracted a great " con
course of people " should be " overthrown," the bishops
were actually attaching indulgences to them and thus
increasing the disorder.7

1 To the Christians at Strasburg, Dec. 15, 1524, " Werke," Weim.
ed., 15, p. 395 ; Erl. ed., 53, p. 275 (" Brief wechsel," 5, p. 83).

2 See above, vol. ii., p. 370.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 67 f. ; Erl. ed., 29, p. 141 f. " Against
the heavenly Prophets." 4 /&., 68=143. 5 /&., p. 73-148.

6 /&., p. 74=149. 7 " Werke," Erl. ed., 152, p. 334.

STATUES AND PICTURES 209

In his sermons against Carlstadt at Wittenberg he had
said things, and afterwards disseminated them in print,
little calculated to impose restraint on the zeal of the multi
tude : "It were better we had none of these images on
account of the tiresome and execrable abuse and unbelief."1

The iconoclasts at Wittenberg were anxious, he says, to
set about hewing down the images. His reply was : " Not
yet ! For you will not eradicate the images in this way,
indeed you will only establish them more firmly than ever."2

Accordingly it was then his own opinion that they should
be " abolished " and " overthrown," particularly such
images as were held in peculiar veneration ; in 1528 he
again admitted that this was his object, when once more
proposing his own less noisy and more cautious policy as
the more effectual ; in his sermons on the Ten Command
ments printed at this time he declared that the way to
" hew down and stamp out the images was to tear and turn
men's hearts away from them."3 Then the " images would
tumble down of their own accord and fall into disrepute ; for
they [the faithful] will say : If it is not a good work to make
images, then it is the devil who makes them and the pictures.
In future I shall keep my money in my pocket or lay it out
to better advantage."4 — " The iconoclasts rush in and tear
down the images outwardly. To this I do not object so much.
But then they go on to say that it must be so, and that it
is well pleasing to God " ; this, however, is false ; it is a
mistake to say that such a Divine command exists to tear
them down.5

The grounds on which he opposed the old-time use of
images were the following : By erecting them people sought
to gain merit in God's sight and to perform good works ;
they also trusted in images and in the Saints instead of in
Christ, Who is our only ground for confidence ; finally — a
reason alleged by him but seldom — people adored the
images and thus became guilty of idolatry. Here it is plain
how much his peculiar theology on good works and the
worship of the saints contribute to his condemnation of the
ancient Catholic practice. In his zeal against the existing

Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 26 ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 225 f.

Ib., p. 29-228.

Ib., 16, p. 440=36, p. 49.

Ib., p. 440 f. = 50.

Ib., p. 444 = 54, Sermon of 1525,

v. — p

210 LUTHER THE REFORMER

abuses he overlooks the fact, that to invoke before their
images the Saints' intercession with Christ was not in the
least opposed to belief in Christ as the one mediator. As
for the charge of adoring the images to which he resorts
exceptionally — more with the object of making an im
pression and shielding himself — it amounted to an act of
injustice against all his forefathers to accuse them of having
been so grossly stupid as to confuse the images with the
divinity ; even he himself had elsewhere sufficiently absolved
them of the charge of adoring saints, let alone images.1

The real cause of this premature attack on images found
in these sermons was the storm called forth by Carlstadt,
which Luther hoped to divert and dominate2 by the atti
tude he assumed ; otherwise it is very likely he would have
refrained from assailing the religious feelings of the people
in so sensitive a spot for many years to come, or at any rate
would not have done so in the manner he chose by way of
reply to Carlstadt.

Nor assuredly would he have gone so far had he himself
ever vividly realised the profoundly religious and morally
stimulating character of the veneration of images, and its
sympathetic and consoling side as exemplified at many of
the regular places of pilgrimage at that time. Owing to the
circumstances of his early years he had never enjoyed the
opportunity of tasting the refreshment and the blessings
to be found in those sacred resorts visited by thousands of
the devout, where those suffering from any ill of soul or
body were wont to seek solace from the cares and trials of
life. Indeed it was particularly against such images as
were the object of special devotion and to which the
people " flocked " with a " false confidence " that his anger
was directed.

His animosity to image-worship would also appear to
have been psychologically bound up with two tendencies
of his : first, with the desire to attack the hated Church of
the Papists at those very spots where her influence with the
people was most apparent ; secondly, with his plan to bring
everything down to a dead level, which led him on the
specious pretext of serving the religion of the spirit to

1 Cp. Weim. ed., 1, p. 425 ; " Opp. lat. exeg.," 12, p. 51 sq. (1518,
against the strictures of the Bohemians) and Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 34 ;
Erl. ed., 28, p. 310.

2 See above, vol. ii., p. 97 f, j .vol, iii., p. 385,

STATUES AND PICTURES 211

abolish, or to curtail, the most popular and cheering
phenomena of outward worship.

It is a reprehensible thing, he says, even in his sermons against
Carlstadt, to have an image set up in the church, because the
believer fancies "he is doing God a service thereby and pleasing
Him, and has thus performed a good work and gained merit in
God's sight, which is sheer idolatry." In their zeal for their
damnable good works the princes, bishops and big ones of the
earth had " caused many costly images of silver and gold to be
set up in the churches and cathedrals." These were not indeed to
be pulled down by force since many at least made a good use
of them ; but it was to be made clear to the people that if " they
were not doing any service to God, or pleasing Him thereby,"
then they would soon " tumble down of their own accord."1

It was a mistake, so he declared in 1528 concerning the grounds
of his verdict against the images, to " invoke them specially, as
though I sought to give great honour or do a great service to
God with the images, as has been the case hitherto." The " trust "
placed in the images has cost us the loss of our souls ; the Chris
tians whom he had instructed were now opposed to this " trust "
and to the opinion " that they were thereby doing a special
service to God."2 Amongst them memorial images might be
permitted, i.e. such as " simply represent, as in a glass, past
events and things " but " are not made into objects of devotion,
trust or worship."3 — It is dreadful to make them a pretext for
" idolatry " and to place our trust in anything but God. " Such
images ought to be destroyed, just as we have already pulled
down many images of the Saints ; it were also to be wished," he
adds ironically, " that we had more such images of silver, for then
we should know how to make a right Christian use of them."4 —
" I will not pay court to such idols ; the worship and adoration
must cease."5 Whoever "with his whole heart has learnt to
keep" the First Commandment would readily despise "all the
idols of silver and gold."6 — Yet of the " adoration " of the images
he had said in a letter of 1522 to Count Ludwig von Stolberg,
that the motive of his opposition was not so much fear of adora
tion, because adoration of the Saints — so he hints — might well
occur without any images; what urged him on was, on the
contrary, the false confidence and the opinion of the Catholics
that " they were thereby doing a good work and a service to
God."'

We have just quoted Luther's reservation, viz. that he
was willing to tolerate the use of images which " simply

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 10, 3, p. 31 f. ; Erl. ed., 28, p. 229 f.

2 Ib., 16, p. 440 = 36, p. 49. Sermons on the Ten Commandments.

3 Ib., 28, p. 677 f.=36, p. 329 f. Exposition of Deuteronomy.

4 Ib., p. 716-368. 6 P. 553 = 206. 6 P. 715 = 367.

7 April 25, 1522, " Werke," Erl. ed., 53, p. 133 (" Briefwechsel,"
3, p. 347).

212 LUTHER THE REFORMER

represent, as in a glass, past events and things." State
ments of this sort occur frequently in his writings. They
go hand in hand with a radical insistence on inward disdain
for image-worship, and a tendency to demand its entire
suppression in the churches. It was on these lines that the
Elector of Saxony acted when ordering the destruction of
the images in the principal church of Wurzen (above, p. 202) ;
images which represented " serious events " and those
overlaid with gold were not to be hewn to pieces.

In the book "Against the Heavenly Prophets" Luther, in the
same sense, writes : "Images used as a memorial or for a symbol,
like the image of the Emperor " on the coins, were not objection
able ; even in conversation images were employed by way of illus
tration ; " memorial pictures or those which bear testimony to
the faith, such as crucifixes and the images of the Saints," are
honest and praiseworthy, but the images venerated at places of
pilgrimage are " utterly idolatrous and mere shelters of the
devil."1 And in the " Vom Abendmal Christi Bekentnis " (1528)
he says : " Images, bells, mass vestments, church ornaments,
altars, lights and such like I leave optional ; whoever wishes may
discard them, although pictures from Scripture and representa
tions of sacred subjects I consider very useful, though I leave
each one free to do as he pleases ; for with the iconoclasts I do
not hold."2

In one passage of his Church-postils he entirely approves the
use of the crucifix ; we ought to contemplate the cross as the
Israelites looked upon the serpent raised on high by Moses ;
we should " see Christ in such an image and believe in Him."3
<l If it be no sin," he says elsewhere, " to have Christ in my heart,
why should it be a sin to have it [His image] before my eyes ? "4

But Catholics were saying much the same thing in defence of
the veneration of images, though to this Luther paid no attention :
If it be no sin to have in our hearts the saints who are Christ's
own friends or Mary who is His Mother, how then should it
be sinful to have their images before our eyes and to honour
them ?

As years went by Luther became more and more liberal in
recommending the use of historical and, in particular, biblical
representations. In 1545, when he published his Passional with
his little manual of prayers, he said in the preface, alluding to the
woodcuts contained in the book : Such pictures ought to be in
the hands of Christians, more particularly of children and of the
simple, who can " better be moved by pictures and figures " ;
there was no harm " in painting such stories in rooms and apart
ments, together with the texts " ; he was in favour of the

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, pp 74 f., 82 f. ; Erl. ed., 29, pp. 149 1,
159. 2 Ib., 26, p. 509 = 30, p. 372.

3 Ib., 10, 3, p. 114= 152, p. 334. 4 Ib., 18, p. 83-29, p. 159.

WORKS OF ART 213

" principal stories of the whole Bible " being pictorially shown,
though he was opposed to all " abuse of and false confidence in "
images. *

Such kindlier expressions did not, however, do full justice
to the veneration of images as practised throughout the
olden Church, nor did they counteract what he had said of
the idols of silver and gold, of the uselessness and harmful-
ness of bestowing money on sacred pictures and religious
works of art to be exposed for the devotion of the people.
All was drowned in his incitement to " destroy," " break in
pieces," " pull down " and " fall upon " the images, first
by means of the Evangel, and, then through the action of
the authorities. It is plain what fate was in store particu
larly for those religious works of art which served as symbols
of, or to extol, those dogmas and institutions peculiarly
odious to him, for instance, the sacrifice of the Mass, around
which centred the ornaments of the altar, the fittings of the
choir, and, more or less, all the decorations of the church.
As for the sacred vessels, often of the most costly character,
and all else that pertained to the dispensing of the sacra
ments, their destruction had already been decreed.

Further details regarding the Fate of the Works of Art and
of Art itself

The account already given above of the squandering and
destruction of ecclesiastical works of art, in particular of
the valuable images of the Saints in the towns of Meissen
and Wurzen,2 may be supplemented by the reports from
Erfurt of the damage done there at the coming of the
religious innovations ; we must also bear in mind, that the
suppression of Catholic worship in this town which looms so
large in Luther's life, took place under his particular in
fluence and with the co-operation of preachers receiving
their instructions from Wittenberg.

Before the lawless peasants entered the town on April 28,
1525, the Council had already " taken into safe custody "
the treasures of the churches and monasteries ; chalices
and other vessels of precious metal were on this occasion
carried away in " tubs and trogs," and eventually the public
funds were enriched with the profit derived from their sale.3

1 lb., 63, p. 391 f. 2 Cp. above, p. 203. 3 See vol. ii., p. 351 f.

214 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Amongst the objects taken, were : a silver censer in the
shape of a small boat, the silver caskets containing the
heads of Saints Severus, Vincentia and Innocentia, the
silver reliquary with the bones of SS. Eobanus and Adolarius
in which they were carried in solemn procession every seven
years. This art-treasure which belonged to St. Mary's, was,
not long after, melted down by the town-council when
pressed for money, " and cast into bars which were taken to
the mint at Weimar." The silver pennies minted from
them were later on called coffin pennies. Other valuables
which the Council had taken in charge were put up for
auction secretly, without their owners learning anything
of the matter. " The prebendaries were well- justified in
urging," writes the Protestant historian who has collected
these data, " as against these high-handed proceedings
that the Council should first have laid hands on the valuables
belonging to the burghers, or at the very least have sum
moned the rightful owners to be present at the sale of their
property, in order that they might make a note of the prices
obtained and thus be able to claim compensation later.
The Council suffered a moral set-back, while at the same
time reaping no appreciable material advantage."1

Not only the Council but the peasants too, led by the
Lutheran preachers, were greatly to blame for the destruc
tion of art treasures wrought at Erfurt in that same year.
When, in order to put an end to the rule over the town of
the Elector, Albert of Brandenburg, they stormed the so-
called Mainzer Hof at Erfurt, " all the jewels, gold, silver
and valuable household stuff were carried off." Shortly
after " the peasants, thanks to their sharpness, managed to
unearth a pastoral staff in silver, worth 300 florins [in the
then currency], which had been concealed in the privy
attached to the room of the master cook to save it from the
greed of the robbers."2 At the Mainzer Hof they removed
all monumental tablets, pictures and statues as well as the
elaborate coats of arms bearing witness to the Archbishop's
sovereignty. A stone effigy of St. Martin which stood in
front of the Rathaus and the ancient symbols of the
sovereignty of Mayence were pulled down and smashed to
bits. In place of these they scrawled on the new stone

1 Th. Eitner, "Erfurt u. die Bauernaufstande im 16. Jahrh.," Halle,
1903, pp. 59, 95. 2 Ib.t p. 72.

WORKS OF ART 215

edifice which had been erected there another coat of arms in
chalk and charcoal, having a plough, coulter and hoe in the
shield and in the field a horse-shoe. " During all this
Adolarius Huttner [with Eberlin of Giinzburg, the apostate
Franciscan] and other Lutheran preachers were going to
and fro amongst them." The whole row of priests' houses
standing alongside the torrent was searched and the valu
ables plundered.1

" The people of Erfurt did almost as much damage as the
peasants."2

As a matter of fact the citizens frequently outdid the
agricultural population in this work of destruction. The
chronicles of the times relate, that they broke down the
walls of the vaults of the two collegiate churches in hopes of
finding hidden treasure behind them, and, then, in their
disappointment, sacrilegiously tore open the tabernacles,
threw the holy oils to the dogs and treated the things in the
churches in such a manner as is " heartrending beyond
description." The mob destroyed not merely the books and
parchments in which their obligations were recorded, but a
number of others of importance for literature and learning
were also wantonly spoiled.

From another contemporary source we have the following
on the destruction of the old writings : " And besides all
this on St. Walpurgis Day in the Lauwengasse the peasants
and those who were with them tore up more than two waggon-
loads of books, and threw them out of the houses into the
street. These the burgher folk carried home in large baskets.
While gathering up the torn books as best they could,
putting them into baskets and binding them with ropes as
one does straw, a whirlwind sprang up and lifted the torn
books, letters and papers high into the air and over all the
houses, so that many of them were afterwards found stick
ing to the poles in the vineyards."3

In very many instances, particularly during the Peasant
War, the destruction and scattering of ecclesiastical works
of art went much beyond Luther's injunctions. We shall
hear him protest, that many were good Evangelicals only so
long as there were still chalices, monstrances and monkish

1 Ib., pp. 74, 84. 2 Ib., p. 75.

3 Ib., pp. 78, 76.

216 LUTHER THE REFORMER

vessels to be had.1 It was naturally a very difficult task
to check the greed of gain and wanton love of destruction
once this had broken loose, particularly after the civil
authorities had tasted the sweets to be derived from the
change of religion, and after the peasants in the intoxication
of their newly found freedom of the Gospel, and in their
lust for plunder, had begun to lay violent hands on property.
It was in accordance with Luther's express injunctions
that the " proper authorities " proceeded to destroy such
images as were not a record of history. They went further,
however, nor was the zeal confined solely to the authorities.

In Prussia, the land of the Teutonic Order, the crosses and the
images of the Saints had been doomed to destruction by the
revolution of 1525 ; the silver treasures of art in the churches
were hammered into plate for use at the new Lutheran Duke's
dining-table. The Estates of his country, when he had asked
them to vote supplies, retorted that he might as well help himself
to the treasures of the churches. The result was, so the chronicler
of that day relates, "that all the chalices and other ornaments"
were removed from the houses of God, barely one chalice being
left in each church ; some of the country churches were even
driven to use pewter chalices. " When they had taken all the
silver they fell upon the bells " ; they left but one in each village,
the rest being carried off to Konigsberg and sold to the smelters. 2
At Marienwerder only did the prebendaries, appealing to the
King of Poland, make a stand for the retention of their church
plate and other property, until they themselves were sent in
chains to Preuschmark. 3

In 1524, during the fair, the images were dragged out of the
churches at Riesenburg in Pomerania, shamelessly dishonoured
and finally burnt. The bishop-elect, a dignitary whom the Pope
had refused to confirm and who was notoriously a " zealous
instrument of the Evangel," excused the proceeding. In other
towns similar outrages were perpetrated by the iconoclasts.

On the introduction of Lutheranism at Stralsund almost all
the churches and monasteries were stormed, the crucifixes and
images being broken up in the presence of members of the town-
council (1525).4

In 1525 the Lutherans at Dantzig took possession of the
wealthy church of St. Mary's, which was renowned for the
number of its foundations and had 128 clergy attached to it.

1 See below, p. 230.

2 Chr. Falk, " Elbingisch-Preuss. Chronik," ed. M. Toppen (" Publik.
des Vereins f. die Gesch. der Provinzen Ost- und West-Preussen,"
Leipzig, 1879), p. 157 f. Janssen, " Hist, of the German People "
(Engl. Trans.), v., p. 112 ff.

3 v. Baczko, " Gesch. Preussens," 4, p. 173 ff. Janssen, ib.

4 Janssen, ib.

WORKS OF ART 217

A list of the articles confiscated or plundered comprises : ten
chalices of gold with precious stones of great value, and as many
bejewelled gold patens and ampullae ; a ciborium of gold with
corals and gems, two gold crosses with gems, an image of the
Virgin Mary with four angels in gold, a silver statue of the same,
silver statues of the Apostles, four and twenty silver ciboriums,
six and forty silver chalices, two dozen of them of silver-gilt,
twelve silver and silver-gilt ampullae, eleven ungilt silver
ampullae, twenty-three silver vessels, twelve of them being gilt,
twelve silver-gilt chalices with lids, twelve silver-gilt crosses with
corals and precious stones, two dozen small silver crosses, eight
large and ten small silver censers, etc., twelve chasubles in cloth
of gold with pearls and gems, twelve of red silk with a gold fringe,
besides this eighty-two silk chasubles, twelve cloth-of-gold
antependiums with pearls and gems, six costly copes, twelve
other silk copes, six and forty albs of gold and silver embroidered
flower-pattern, sixty-five other fine albs, eighty-eight costly
altar covers, forty-nine gold-embroidered altar cloths, ninety-
nine less elaborate altar cloths.1

When Bugenhagen had secured the triumph of Lutheranism
in the town of Brunswick the altars w^ere thrown down, the
pictures and statues removed, the chalices and other church
vessels melted down and the costly mass vestments sold to the
highest bidder at the Rathaus (1528). Bugenhagen, Luther's
closest spiritual colleague, laboured zealously to sweep the
churches clean of " every vestige of Popish superstition and
idolatry." Only the collegiate churches of St. Blasius and St.
Cyriacus, and the monastery of St. Egidius, of which Duke Henry
of Brunswick was patron, remained intact. 2

The wildest outbreak of iconoclasm took place in 1542 in the
Duchy of Brunswick, when the Elector Johann Frederick of
Saxony and Landgrave Philip of Hesse occupied the country and
proceeded to extirpate the Catholic worship still prevalent there.
Within a short while over four hundred churches had been
plundered, altars, tabernacles, pictures and sculptures being
destroyed in countless numbers.3

During this so-called " Evangelical War " five thousand
burghers and mercenaries of the town of Brunswick, shouting
their war-cry : " The Word of God remaineth for ever," set out,
on July 21, 1542, against the monastery of Riddaghausen ; there
they broke down the altars, images and organs, carried off the
monstrances, mass vestments and other treasures of the church,
plundering generally and perpetrating the worst abominations.
The mob also broke in pieces the images and pictures in the
monastery of Steterburg and then demolished the building. Nor
did the abbey of Gandersheim fare much better. The preben
daries there complained to the Emperor, that all the crucifixes
and images of the Saints had been destroyed together with other

1 L. Redner's " Skizzen aus der KG. Danzigs," Danzig, 1875
(" Marienkirchen ").

2 Janssen, ib., p. 120. 3 Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 34 ff.

218 LUTHER THE REFORMER

objects set up for the adornment of the church and churchyard
outside. 1

The Lutheran preacher, K. Reinholdt, looking back two
decades later on the devastation wrought in Germany, reminded
his hearers that Luther himself had repeatedly preached that,
" it would be better that all churches and abbeys in the world
were torn down and burnt to ashes, that it would be less sinful,
even if done from criminal motives, than that a single soul should
be led astray into Popish error and be ruined" ; "if they would
not accept his teaching, then, so Luther the man of God had
exclaimed, he would wish not merely that his doctrine might be
the cause of the destruction of Popish churches and convents,
but that they were already lying in a heap of ashes."2

At Hamburg iconoclastic disturbances began in Dec., 1528. The
Cistercian convent, Harvestehude, where the clergy still dare to
say Mass, was rased to the ground. 3

At Zerbst, in 1524, images and church fittings were destroyed,
part of these being used to " keep up the fire for the brewing of
the beer " ;4 stone sculptures were mutilated and then used in
the construction of the Zerbst Town-Hall, whence they were
brought to light at a much later date, when a portion of the
building was demolished. The statues, headless, indeed, but still
gleaming with gold and colours, gave, as a narrator of the find
said, " an insight into the horrors of the iconoclasm which had run
riot in the neighbouring churches."5

The chronicler Oldecop describes how, at Hildesheim in 1548,
the heads of the stone statues of St. Peter and St. Paul which
stood at the door of the church of the Holy Rood were hewn off
and replaced by the heads of two corpses from the mortuary ;
they were then stoned by the boys. The magistrates, indeed,
fined the chief offender, but only because forced to do so.6
Hildesheim had been protestantised in great part as early as
1524. At that time the mob plundered the churches and
monasteries, rifled the coffins of the dead in search of treasure,
destroyed the crucifixes and the images of the Saints, tore down
the side altars in most of the churches and carried off chalices,
monstrances and ornaments, and even the silver casket contain
ing the bones of St. Bern ward.7 From St. Martin's, a church
belonging to the Franciscans, the magistrates, according to the
inventory, removed the following : sixteen gilt chalices and
patens, eleven silver chalices, one large monstrance with bells,

1 Ib., vol. vi., p. 205.

2 Whitsuntide Sermon, in Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 38. Cp. " Luthers
Werke," Erl. ed., 72, pp. 121, 131, 222 f., 330. Cp. Janssen, ib., p. 37,
the passages from the sermons of the superintendent George Nigrinus.

3 Janssen, ib., v., p. 121.

4 Beckmann, " Historic des Fiirstentums Anhalt," 6, p. 43.

5 " Repertorium f. Kunstwissenschaft," 20, p. 46. Janssen, ib.,
vol. xi., p. 36.

6 Oldecop, in 1548. Janssen, ib., vol. xi., p. 36.

7 " Hist.-pol. Bl.," 9, p. 316 ff. : 10, p. 15 ff. Janssen, " Hist, of
the German People " (Engl. Trans.), vi., p. 209.

WORKS OF ART 219

one large gilt cross, three silver crosses with stands, a silver
statue of Our Lady four feet in height, a silver censer, two silver
ampullae, a silver-gilt St. Lawrence gridiron, a big Pacifical from
the best cope, all the bangles from the chasubles, seventeen
silver clasps from the copes, " the jewellery belonging to our
dear ladies the Virgin Catherine and Mother Anne," and, besides,
ten altars and also a monument erected to Brother Conrad, who
was revered as a Saint, were destroyed ; the copper and lead from
the tower was carried off together with a small bell. x

When the Schmalkalden Leaguers began to take up arms for
the Evangel the Evangelical captain Schartlin von Burtenbach,
commander-in-chief of the South-German towns, suddenly fell
upon the town of Fiissen on July 9, 1546, abolished the Catholic
worship and threw the " idols " out of the churches. Before his
departure he plundered all the churches and clergy, and " set
the peasants on to massacre the idols in their churches " ; the
proceeds " from the chalices and silver plate he devoted to the
common expenses of the Estates."

This was only the beginning of Schartlin's plundering. After
joining hands with the Wiirtemberg troops his raiding expeditions
were carried on on a still larger scale.2

During the Schmalkalden campaign the soldiers of Saxony
and Hesse on their retreat from the Oberland, acting at the
behest of the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse,
carried off as booty all the valuable plate belonging to the
churches and monasteries. Chalices, monstrances, Mass vest
ments and costly images, none of them were spared. In Saxony
similar outrages were perpetrated.

In Jan., 1547, the Elector caused all the chalices, monstrances,
episcopal crosses and other valuables that still remained at Halle
and either were the property of the Archbishop of Magdeburg,
Johann Albert, or had been presented to the place by him, to be
brought to Eisleben and either sold or coined. The Elector's
men-at-arms and the mob destroyed the pictures and statues in
the Dominican and Franciscan friaries. When, shortly after this,
Merseburg, as well as Magdeburg and Halberstadt, was occupied
by the Saxon troops, the leaders robbed the Cathedral church (of
Merseburg) of its oldest and most valuable art treasures, amongst
which was the golden table which the Emperor Henry II had
presented to it.3

Magdeburg was the rallying-place of Lutheran zealots, such as
Flacius Illyricus, and was even called the " chancery of God and
His Christ," by Aquila in a letter to Duke Albert of Prussia ;4
before it was besieged in the Emperor's name by Maurice of
Saxony and was yet under the rule of a Council banned by the

1 " Hist.-pol. Bl.," 10, p. 17.

2 Ladurner, " Der Einfall der Schmalkaldener im Tirol, 1546,"
(" Archiv f. Gesch. u. Altertumskunde Tirols," 1), p. 415 ff. Janssen,
ib., vi., 315 ff. 3 Janssen, ib., vi., p. 349.

4 J. Voigt, " Brief wechsel der Gelehrten des Zeitalters der Refor
mation mit Herzog Albrecht von Preussen," 1841, p. 30.

220 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Empire, it passed through a period of wild outrage directed
against the Catholic churches and convents, both within and
outside the walls. The appeal addressed by the cathedral
Chapter on Aug. 15, 1550, to the Estates of the Empire assembled
at Augsburg gives the details.1 The town, "for the protection
of the true Christian religion and holy Evangel," laid violent
hands on the rich property of the churches and cloisters, and
committed execrable atrocities against defenceless clerics.
Bodies were exhumed in the churches and cemeteries. Never,
so the account declares, would the Turks have acted with such
barbarity. Even the tomb of the Emperor Otto, the founder of
the archdiocese, was, so the Canons relate, " inhumanly and
wantonly broken open and desecrated with great uproar."

Several thousand men set out from the town for the monastery
of Hamersleben, situated in the diocese of Halberstadt. They
forced their way into the church one Sunday during Divine
service, wounded or slaughtered the officiating priests, trampled
under foot the Sacred Host and ransacked church and monastery.
Among the images and works of art destroyed was some magnifi
cent stained glass depicting the Way of the Cross. No less than
150 waggons bore away the plunder to Magdeburg, accompanied
by the mob, who in mockery had decked themselves out in the
Mass vestments and habits of the monks. 2

Hans, Margrave of Brandenburg-Kiistrin, was one who had
war against the Catholic clergy much at heart. In a letter to the
Elector Maurice he spoke of the clergy as " priests of Baal and
children of the devil." It was a proof of his Evangelical zeal,
that, on July 15, 1551, he ordered the church of St. Mary at
Gorlitz to be pillaged and destroyed by Johann von Minckwitz.
All the altars, images and carvings were hacked to pieces, all
the costly treasures stolen. Minckwitz had great difficulty in
rescuing the treasures from the hands of a drunken mob of
peasants who were helping in the work, and conveying them
safely to the Margrave at Kiistrin.3

In the spring of 1552, when Maurice of Saxony levied a heavy
fine on the town of Nuremberg for having revolted against the
Emperor, the magistrates sought to indemnify themselves by
taking nearly 900 Ibs. weight of gold and silver treasures out of
the churches of Our Lady, St. Lawrence and St. Sebaldus and
ordering them to be melted down or sold.4

In June and July, 1552, Margrave Albert of Brandenburg-
Kulmbach laid waste the country around Mayence with fire and
sword to such an extent, that the bishop of Wiirzburg, in order to
raise the unheard-of sums demanded, had, as we find it stated
in a letter of Zasius to King Ferdinand dated July 10, to lump
together " all the gold and silver plate in the churches, the
jewels, reliquaries, monstrances, statues and vessels of the

1 Janssen, ib., vi., p. 434.

2 Aug. 19, 1548, C. W. Hase, " Mittelalterliche Baudenkmale
Niedersachsens," Hannover, 1858, Hft., 3, p. 100.

3 Janssen, ib., vi., p. 438 f. * /&., vi., p. 454.

WORKS OF ART 221

sanctuary " and have them minted into thalers. " At Neu-
miinster one reliquary was melted down which alone was worth
1000 florins."1 The citizens of Wiirzburg were obliged to give up
all their household plate and the cathedral itself the silver statue
of St. Kilian, patron of the diocese. 2

When the commanders and the troops of the Elector Maurice
withdrew from the Tyrol after the frustration of their under
taking owing to the flight of the Emperor to Carinthia, all the
sacred objects of value in the Cistercian monastery of Stams in
the valley of the upper Inn were either broken to pieces or carried
off. The soldiers broke open the vault, where the earthly remains
of the ruling Princes had rested for centuries, dragged the corpses
out of their coffins and stripped them of their valuables.3 The
inventory of the treasures of art made of precious metal and
other substances which perished at Stams must be classed with
numerous other sad records of a similar nature dating from
that time.4

After the truce of Passau, Margrave Albert of Brandenburg,
with the help of France, turned his attention to Frankfurt,
Mayence and Treves. At Mayence, after making a vain demand
for 100,000 gold florins from the clergy, he gave orders to ransack
the churches, and set on fire the churches of St. Alban, St. Victor
and Holy Cross, the Charterhouse and the houses of the Canons.
He boasted of this as a " right princely firebrand we threw into
the damned nest of parsons." In Treves all the collegiate
churches and monasteries were "sacked down to the very last
farthing," as an account relates ; the monastery of St. Maximin,
the priory of St. Paul, the castle of Saarburg on the Saar, Pfalzel
and Echternach were given to the flames.5 " Such proceedings
were incumbent on an honourable Prince who had the glory of
God at heart and was zealous for the spread of the Divine Gospel,
which God the Lord in our age has allowed to shine forth with
such marvellous light." So Albert boasted to an envoy of the
Archbishop of Mayence on June 27, 1552, when laying waste
Wiirzburg. 6

"The archbishoprics of Treves and Mayence, the bishoprics of
Spires, Worms and Eichstatt are laid waste with pillage," wrote
Melchior von Ossa the Saxon lawyer, " the stately edifices at
Mayence, Treves and other places, where lay the bones of so
many pious martyrs of old, are reduced to ashes."7 The com
plaints of a Protestant preacher who had worked for a consider
able time at Schwabisch-Hall ring much the same : " Our
parents were willing to contribute towards the building of

1 See A. v. Druffel, " Briefe und Akten zur Gesch. des 16. Jahrh.,"
2, 1873 ff., p. 668. 2 Janssen, ib., vi., p. 458.

3 F. A. Sinnacher, " Beitr. z. Gesch. d. Kirche Saben und Brixen,"
7, 1830, p. 441. D. Schonherr, " Der Einfall des Kurfiirsten Moritz in
Tyrol," 1868, p. 101 ff. Janssen, ib., vi., p. 478.

4 See Schonherr, ib., p. 137 ff.

5 Janssen, ib., vi., p. 496. 6 Ib., vi., p. 459.

7 Melchior von Ossa in his diary, Jan. 1, 1553. F. A. Langenn,
" D. Melchior von Ossa," 1858, p. 161. Janssen, ib., p. 505.

222 LUTHER THE REFORMER

churches and to the adornment of the temples of God. . . . But
now the churches have been pilfered so badly that they barely
retain a roof over them. Superb Mass vestments of silk and
velvet with pearls and corals were provided for the churches by
our forefathers ; these have now been removed and serve the
woman-folk as hoods and bodices ; indeed so poor have some of
the churches become under the rule of the Evangel, that it is
impossible to provide the ministers of the Church even with
a beggarly surplice."1

The wanton waste and destruction which took place in
the domain of art under Lutheran rule during the first fifty
years of the religious innovations, great as they were, do not
by any means approach in magnitude the losses caused
elsewhere by Zwinglianism and Calvinism.

Yet two things in Lutheranism had a disastrous effect
in checking the revival of religious art, even when the first
struggles for mastery were over : first, there was the
animosity against the Sacrifice of the Mass and the per
petual eucharistic presence of Christ in the tabernacle ; this
led people to view with distrust the old alliance existing
between the Eucharistic worship and the liberal arts for
exalting the dignity and beauty of the churches. After
the Mass had been abolished and the Sacrament had ceased
to be reserved within the sacred walls, respect for and
interest in the house of God, which had led to so much being
lavished on it, began to wane. The other obstacle lay in
Luther's negative attitude towards the ancient doctrine and
practice of good works. The belief in the meritoriousness
of works had in the past been a stimulus to pecuniary
sacrifices and offerings for the making of pious works of art.
Now, however, artists began to complain, that, owing to
the decline of zeal for church matters their orders were
beginning to fall off, and that the makers of works of art
were being condemned to starvation.

" In a protocol of the Council of Strasburg, dated Feb. 3,
1525, we read in a petition from the artists : " Painters and
sculptors beg, that, whereas, through the Word of God
their handicraft has died out they may be provided with
posts before other claimants." The Council answered that
their appeal would " be borne in mind."2

1 Dollinger, " Reformation," 2, p. 318.

- " Mitteil. der Gesellschaft f. Erhaltung der geschtl. Denkmaler
im Elsass," 15, 1892, p. 248. Janssen, " Hist, of the German People "
(Engl. Trans.), xi., p. 46.

WORKS OF ART 223

The verses of Hans Sachs of Nuremberg are well-known :

" Bell-founders and organists,

Gold-beaters and illuminists,
Hand-painters, carvers and goldsmiths,

Glass-painters, silk-workers, coppersmiths,
Stone-masons, carpenters and joiners,

'Gainst all these did Luther wield a sword.
From Thee we ask a verdict, Lord."

In the poet's industrious and artistic native town the decline
must have been particularly noticeable. According to the
popular Lutheran poet of Nuremberg the fault is with the
complainants themselves, who,

"With scorn disdain
From greed of gain "

the Word of Christ. " They must cease worrying about
worldly goods like the heathen, but must seek the Kingdom
of God with eagerness."1

It is perfectly true that the words that Hans Sachs on
this occasion places in the mouth of the complainant are
unfair to Luther :

"All church building and adorning he despises,
Treats with scorning,
He not wise is."2

For in spite of his attacks on the veneration of images, on
the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and the meritorious-
ness of pious foundations, Luther was, nevertheless, not so
" unwise " as to despise the " building and adorning " of
the churches, where, after all, the congregation must
assemble for preaching, communion and prayer.3

That Luther was not devoid of a sense of the beautiful
and of its practical value in the service of religion is proved
by his outspoken love of music, particularly of church-music,
his numerous poetic efforts, no less than by that strongly
developed appreciation of well-turned periods, clearness and
force of diction so well seen in his translation of the Bible.
His life's struggle, however, led him along paths which make

1 E. Weller, " Der Volksdichter Hans Sachs u. seine Dichtungen,"
1868, p. 118 ff. 2 J6.

3 He frequently laments that the churches were too ill-provided for.
Cp. Walch's Index, s.v. " Kirche," & " Gotteshauser."

224 LUTHER THE REFORMER

it easy to understand how it is that he has so little to say in
his writings in commendation of the other liberal arts. It
also explains the baldness of his reminiscences of his visit to
Italy and the city of Rome ; the young monk, immersed in
his theology, was even then pursuing quite other interests
than those of art. It is true Luther, once, in one of the rare
passages in favour of ecclesiastical art, speaking from his
own point of view, says : "It is better to paint on the wall
how God created the world, how Noah made the ark and
such-like pious tales, than to paint worldly and shameless
subjects ; would to God I could persuade the gentry and the
rich to have the whole Bible story painted on their houses,
inside and out, for everyone's eye to see; that would be
a good Christian work."1 Manifestly he did not intend his
words to be taken too literally in the case of dwelling-houses.
A fighter such af Luther was scarcely the right man to give
any real stimulus in the domain of art. The heat of his
religious polemics scorched up in his soul any good dis
positions of this sort which may once have existed, and
blighted in its very beginnings the growth of any real
feeling for art among his zealous followers. Hardly a single
passage can be found in which he expresses any sense of
satisfaction in the products of the artist.

It is generally admitted that in the 16th century German
art suffered a severe set-back. For this the bitter contro
versies wrhich for the while transformed Germany into a
hideous battlefield were largely responsible ; for such a soil
could not but prove unfavourable for the arts and crafts.
The very artists themselves were compelled to prostitute
their talents in ignoble warfare. We need only call to mind
the work of the two painters Cranach, the Elder and the
Younger, and the horrid flood of caricatures and base
vilifications cast both in poetry and in prose. " The rock
on which art suffered shipwreck was not, as a recent art-
writer says, the fact that ' German art was too early severed
from its bond with the Church,' but that, with regard to its
subject-matter and its methods of expression, it was forced
into false service by the intellectual and religious leaders."2

1 " Werke," Weim. ed., 18, p. 82 f. ; Erl. ed., 29, p. 158.

2 See P. Lehfeldt, " Luthers Verhaltnis zu Kunst und Kiinstlern,"
Berlin, 1892, p. 84. Janssen, ib., xi., 39. — On the whole subject see
Janssen, "Hist, of the German People" (Engl. Trans.), vol. xi., ch. ii.

CHAPTER XXXI

LUTHER IN HIS DISMAL MOODS, HIS SUPERSTITION AND
DELUSIONS

1. His Persistent Depression in Later Years
Persecution Mania and Morbid Fancies

AMONG the various causes of the profound ill-humour and
despondency, which more and more overshadowed Luther's
soul during the last ten years of his life, the principal without
a doubt was his bitter disappointment.

He was disappointed with what he himself calls the
" pitiable spectacle " presented by his Church no less than
with the firmness and stability of the Papacy. Not only
did the Papal Antichrist refuse to bow to the new Evangel
or to be overthrown " by the mere breath of Christ's
mouth," as Luther had confidently proclaimed would be the
case, but, in the evening of his days, it was actually growing
in strength, its members standing shoulder to shoulder ready
at last to seek inward reform by means of a General Council.

The melancholy to which he had been subject in earlier
years had been due to other thoughts which not seldom
pressed upon him, to his uncertainty and fear of having
to answer before the Judge. In his old age such fears
diminished, and the voices which had formerly disquieted
him scarcely ever reached the threshold of his consciousness ;
by dint of persistent effort he had hardened himself against
such " temptations." The idea of his Divine call was ever
in his mind, though, alas, it proved only too often a blind
guide incapable of transforming his sense of discouragement
into any confidence worthy of the name. At times this idea
nickers up more brightly than usual ; when this happens
his weariness seems entirely to disappear and makes room
for the frightful outbursts of bitterness, hate and anger of
a soul at odds both with itself and with the whole world.

Doubtless his state of health had a good deal to do with
v.— Q 225

226 LUTHER THE REFORMER

this, for, in his feverish activity, he had become unmindful
of certain precautions. Lost in his exhausting literary
labours and public controversies his state of nervous excite
ment became at last unbearable.

The depression which is laying its hand on him manifests
itself in the hopeless, pessimistic tone of his complaints to
his friends, in his conviction of being persecuted by all, in
his superstitious interpretations of the Bible and the signs
of the times, in his expectation of the near end of all, and in
his firm persuasion that the devil bestrides and rules the
world.

His Depression and Pessimism

Disgust with work and even with life itself, and an
appalling unconcern in the whole course of public affairs,
are expressed in some of his letters to his friends.

" I am old and worked out — ' old, cold and out of shape,' as
they say — and yet cannot find any rest, so greatly am I tormented
every day with all manner of business and scribbling. I now
know rather more of the portents of the end of this world ; that
it is indeed on its last legs is quite certain, with Satan raging so
furiously and the world becoming so utterly beastly. My only
remaining consolation is that the end cannot be far off. Now at
last fewer false doctrines will spring up, the world being weary
and sick of the Word of God ; for if they take to living like
Epicureans and to despising the Word, who will then have any
hankering after heresies ? . . . Let us pray ' Thy will be done,'
and leave everything to take its course, to fall or stand or perish ;
let things go their own way if otherwise they will not go." " Ger
many," he says, " has had its day and will never again be what
it once was " ; divided against itself it must, so he fancies,
succumb to the devil's army embodied in the Turks. This to
Jakob Probst, the Bremen preacher.1 Not long after he wrote
to the same : " Germany is full of scorners of the Word. . . .
Our sins weigh heavily upon us as you know, but it is useless for
us to grumble. Let things take their course, seeing they are
going thus."2

To Amsdorf he says in a letter that he would gladly die. " The
world is a dreadful Sodom." " And, moreover, it will grow still
worse." " Could I but pass away with such a faith, such peace,
such a falling asleep in the Lord as my daughter [who had just
died] ! "3 Similarly, in another letter to Amsdorf we read :
" Before the flood the world was as Germany now is before her
downfall. Since they refuse to listen they must be taught by
experience. It will cry out with Jeremias [li. 9] : ' We would

1 March 26, 1542, " Briefe," 5, p. 451.

2 Oct. 9, 1542, ib., p. 501. 3 Oct. 29, 1542, ib., p. 502.

HIS LOW SPIRITS 227

have cured Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her.'
God is indeed our salvation, and to all eternity will He shield

us.

" We will rejoice in our tribulation," so he encourages his
former guest Cordatus, " and leave things to go their way ; it
is enough that we, and you too, should cause the sun of our
teaching to rise all cloudless over the wicked world, after the
example of God our Father, Who makes His sun to shine on the
just and the unjust. The sun of our doctrine is His ; what wonder
then if people hate us." " Thus we can see," so he concludes,
that " outwardly we live in the kingdom of the devil."2

Plunged in such melancholy he is determined, without
trusting in human help, so he writes to his friend Jonas, " to
leave the guidance of all things to Christ alone " ; of all
active work he was too weary ; everything was " full of
deception and hypocrisy, particularly amongst the power
ful " ; to sigh and pray was the best thing to do ; " let us
put out of our heads any thought and plans for helping
matters, for all is alike useless and deceitful, as experience
shows."3

Christ had taken on Himself the quieting of consciences,
hence, with all the more confidence, " might they entrust to
Him the outcome of the struggle between the true Church
and the powers of Satan." " True, Christ seems at times,"
he writes to his friend Johann August, "to be weaker than
Satan ; but His strength will be made perfect in our weak
ness (2 Cor. xii. 9), His wisdom is exalted in our foolishness,
His goodness is glorified in our sins and misdeeds in accord
ance with His wonderful and inscrutable ways. May He
strengthen you and us, and conform us to His likeness for
the honour of His mercy."4

During such a period of depression his fears are redoubled
when he hears of the atrocities perpetrated by the Turks
at Stuhlweissenburg ; the following is his interpretation
of the event : " Satan has noticed the approach of the
Judgment Day and shows his fear. What may be his
designs on us ? He rages because his time is now short.
May God help us manfully to laugh at all his fury ! " He
laments with grim irony the greed for gain and the treachery
of the great. " Devour everything in the devil's name," he
cries to them, " Hell will glut you," and continues : " Come,

1 Nov. 7, 1543, ib., p. 600. 2 Dec. 3, 1544, ib., p. 702.

3 March 13, 1542, ib., p. 444. 4 Oct. 5, 1542, ib., p. 501.

228 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Lord Jesus, come, hearken to the sighing of Thy Church,
hasten Thy coming ; wickedness is reaching its utmost
limit ; soon it must come to a head, Amen."

Even this did not suffice and Luther again adds : "I have
written the above because it seems better than nothing.
Farewell, and teach the Church to pray for the Day of the
Lord ; for there is no hope of a better time coming. God
will listen only when we implore the quick advent of our
redemption, in which all the portents agree."1

The outpourings of bitterness and disgust with life, which
Antony Lauterbach noted while a guest at Luther's table
in 1538, find a still stronger echo in the Table-Talk collected
by Mathesius in the years subsequent to 1540.

In Lauterbach's Notes he still speaks of his inner struggles
with the devil, i.e. with his conscience ; this was no longer the
case when Mathesius knew him : " We are plagued and troubled
by the devil, whose bones are very tough until we learn to crack
them. Paul and Christ had enough to do with the devil. I, too,
have my daily combats." 2 He had learnt how hard it was " when
mental temptations come upon us and we say, ' Accursed be
the day I was born ' " ; rather would he endure the worst bodily
pains during which at least one could still say, " Blessed be the
Name of the Lord."3 The passages in question will be quoted
at greater length below.

But according to Lauterbach's Notes of his sayings he was also
very bitter about the general state of things : " It is the world's
way to think of nothing but of money," he says, for instance,
" as though on it hung soul and body. God and our neighbour
are despised and people serve Mammon. Only look at our
times ; see how full all the great ones, the burghers too, and the
peasants, are with avarice and how they stamp upon religion.
. . . Horrible times will come, worse even than befell Sodom and
Gomorrha ! "4 — " All sins," he complains, " rage mightily, as we
see to-day, because the world of a sudden has grown so wanton
and calls down God's wrath upon its head." In these words he
was bewailing, as Lauterbach relates, the " impending mis
fortunes of Germany."5 — "The Church to-day is more tattered
than any beggar's cloak."6 " The world is made up of nothing
but contempt, blasphemy, disobedience, adultery, pride and
thieving ; it is now in prime condition for the slaughter-house.
And Satan gives us no rest, what with Turk, Pope and fanatics."7

" Who would have started preaching," he says in the same
year, oppressed by such experiences, " had he known beforehand

1 Dec. 16, 1543, ib., p. 611 f.

2 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 144.

3 Ib., p. 105. 4 Ib., p. 140. * jb., p. 122.
6 Ib., p. 113. 7 Ib., p. 132.

HIS LOW SPIRITS 229

that such misfortune, fanatism, scandal, blasphemy, ingratitude
and wickedness would be the sequel ? "x To live any longer he
had not the slightest wish now that no peace was to be hoped
for from the fanatics.2 He even wished his wife and children to
follow him to the grave without delay because of the evil times
to come soon after.3

In the conversations taken down by Mathesius in the 'forties
Luther's weariness of life finds even stronger expression, nor are
the words in which he describes it of the choicest : "I have had
enough of the world and it, too, has had enough of me ; with this
I am well content. It fancies that, were it only rid of me, all
would be well. ..." As I have often repeated : "I am the
ripe shard and the world is the gaping anus, hence the parting
will be a happy one."4 "As I have often repeated " ; the
repulsive comparison had indeed become a favourite one with
him in his exasperation. Other sayings in the Table-Talk contain
unmistakable allusions to the bodily excretions as a term of
comparison to Luther's so ardently desired departure from this
world.5 The same coarse simile is met in his letters dating from
this time.6

The reason of his readiness to depart, viz. the world's hatred
for his person, he elsewhere depicts as follows ; the politicians
who were against him, particularly those at the Dresden court,
are " Swine," deserving of " hell-fire " ; let them at least leave
in peace our Master, the Son of God, and the Kingdom of Heaven
also ; with a quiet conscience we look upon them as abandoned
bondsmen of the devil, whose oaths though sworn to a hundred
times over are not the least worthy of belief ; " we must scorn
the devil in these devils and sons of devils, yea, in this seed of
the serpent."7

" The gruff, boorish Saxon,"8 as Luther calls himself, here
comes to the fore. He seeks, however, to refrain from dwelling
unduly on the growing lack of appreciation shown for his au
thority ; he was even ready, so he said, " gladly to nail to the
Cross those blasphemers and Satan with them."9

" I thank Thee, my good God," he once said in the winter
1542-43 to Mathesius and the other people at table, " for letting
me be one of the little flock that suffers persecution for Thy Word's
sake ; for they do not persecute me for adultery or usury, as I
well know."10 According to the testimony of Mathesius he also
said : " The Courts are full of Eceboli and folk who change with
the weather. If only a real sovereign like Constantino came to

Below, xxxii., 6.

Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 114, in 1538. 3 /&., p. 105.
Mathesius, " Tischreden," ed. Kroker, p. 303.

According to Mathesius ("Historien," p. 146) he once said even
;he pulpit : "A full belly and ripe dung are easily parted."
To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 598. 7 76.
Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 156 ; " Aufzeichii.," p. 117.1
To Lauterbach, ib. 10 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 303.

230 LUTHER THE REFORMER

his Court [the Elector's] we should soon see who would kiss the
Pope's feet." " Many remain good Evangelicals because there
are still chalices, monstrances and cloistral lands to be taken."1
That a large number, not only of the high officials, but even of
the " gentry and yokels," were " tired " of him is clear from
statements made by him as early as 1530. Wishing then to visit
his father who lay sick, he was dissuaded by his friends from
undertaking the journey on account of the hostility of the
country people towards his person : "I am compelled to believe,"
so he wrote to the sick man, " that I ought not to tempt God by
venturing into danger, for you know how both gentry and yokels
feel towards me."2 " Amongst the charges that helped to lessen
his popularity was his supposed complicity in the Peasant War
and in the rise of the Sacramentarians."3

" Would that I and all my children were dead," so he repeats,
according to Mathesius,4 ' ' Satur sum huius vitae " ; it was well
for the young, that, in their thoughtlessness and inexperience,
they failed to see the mischief of all the scandals rampant, for
else "they would not be able to go on living."5 — "The world
cannot last much longer. Amongst us there is the utmost in
gratitude and contempt for the Word, whilst amongst the Papists
there is nothing but blood and blasphemy. This will soon knock
the bottom out of the cask."6 There would be no lack of other
passages to the same effect to quote from Mathesius.

Some of the Grounds for His Lowness of Spirits

Luther is so communicative that it is easy enough to fix
on the various reasons for his depression, which indeed he
himself assigns.

To Melanchthon Luther wrote : " The enmity of Satan is too
Satanic for him not to be plotting something for our undoing.
He feels that we are attacking him in a vital spot with the eternal
truth." 7 Here it is his gloomy forebodings concerning the outcome
of the religious negotiations, particularly those of Worms, which
lead him so to write. The course of public events threw fresh
fuel on the flame of his anger. " I have given up all hope in this
colloquy. . . . Our theological gains tanders," so he says, " are
possessed of Satan, however much they may disguise themselves
in majesty and as angels of light."8 — Then there was the terrifying
onward march of the Turks : "O raging fury, full of all manner

1 " Hist.," p. 145' f. Ecebolius, under the Emperor Constantine,
a type of the hypocrite.

2 To Hans Luther, Feb. 15, 1530, " Werke," Erl. ed., 24, p. 130
(" Brief wechsel," 7, p. 230).

3 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 127.

4 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 288.

5 Ib., p. 179. 6 Ib., p. 155.
7 Dec. 7, 1540, " Briefe," 5, p. 322. 8 Ib.

HIS LOW SPIRITS 231

of devils." Such is his excitement that he suspects the Christian
hosts of " the most fatal and terrible treachery."1

The devil, however, also lies in wait even for his friends to
estrange them from him by delusions and distresses of conscience ;
this knowledge wrings from him the admonition : " Away with
the sadness of the devil, to whom Christ sends His curse, who
seeks to make out Christ as the judge, whereas He is rather the
consoler."2 Satan just then was bent on worrying him through
the agency of the Swiss Zwinglians : "I have already condemned
and now condemn anew these fanatics and puffed-up idlers." Now
they refuse to admit my victories against the Pope, and actually
claim that it was all their doing. " Thus does one man toil
only for another to reap the harvest."3 These satellites of Satan
who work against him and against all Christendom are hell's
own resource for embittering his old age.

Then again the dreadful state of morals, particularly at
Wittenberg, under his very eyes, makes his anger burst forth
again and again ; even in his letter of congratulation to Justus
Jonas on the latter's second marriage he finds opportunity to
have a dig at the easy-going Wittenberg magistrates : " There
might be ten trulls here infecting no end of students with the
French disease and yet no one would lift a finger ; when half the
town commits adultery, no one sits in judgment. . . . The world
is indeed a vexatious thing." The civic authorities, according
to him, were but a " plaything in the devil's hand."

At other times his ill-humour vents itself on the Jews, the
lawyers, or those German Protestant Reformers who had the
audacity to hold opinions at variance with his. Carlstadt, with
his "monstrous assertions"4 against Luther, still poisons the air
even when Luther has the consolation of knowing, that, on
Carlstadt's death (in 1541), he had been fetched away by the
" devil." Carlstadt's horrid doctrines tread Christ under foot,
just as Schwenckf eld's fanaticism is the unmaking of the Churches.

Then again there are demagogues within the fold who say :
" I arn your Pope, what care I for Dr. Martin ? " These, according
to him, are in almost as bad case as the others. Thus, "during
our lifetime, this is the way the world rewards us, for and on this
account and behalf ! And yet we are expected to pray and heed
lest the Turk slay such Christians as these who really are worse
than the Turks themselves ! As though it would not be better,
if the yoke of the Turk must indeed come upon us, to serve the
Turkish foeman and stranger rather than the Turks in our own
circle and household. God will laugh at them when they cry to
Him in the day of their distress, because they mocked at Him by
their sins and refused to hearken to Him when He spoke, implored,
exhorted, and did everything, stood and suffered everything,
when His heart was troubled on their account, when He called

1 To Justus Jonas, Jan. 26, 1543, ib., p. 534.

2 To Spalatin, Aug. 21, 1544, ib., p. 679 f.

3 To Amsdorf, April 14, 1545, ib., p. 728.

4 June 18, 1543, ib., p. 570.

232 LUTHER THE REFORMER

them by His holy prophets, and even rose up early on their
account (Jer. vii. 13 ; xi. 7).1 But such is their way ; they know
that it is God Whose Word we preach and yet they say : " We
shan't listen. In short, the wildest of wild furies have broken
into them," etc.2

Thus was he wont to rave when " excited," though not
until, so at least he assures us, having first " by dint of much
striving put down his anger, his thoughts and his tempta
tions." " Blessed be the Lord Who has spoken to me, com
forting me : ' Why callest thou ? Let things go their own
way.' ' It grieves him, so he tells us, to see the country he
loves going to rack and ruin ; Germany is his fatherland, and,
before his very eyes, it is hastening to destruction. " But
God's ways are just, we may not resist them. May God
have mercy on us for no one believes us." Even the doctrine
of letting things go their own way — to which in his pessim
ism Luther grew attached in later life — he was firmly
convinced had come to him directly from the Lord, Who
had " consolingly " whispered to him these words. Even
this saying reeks of his peculiar pseudo-mysticism.

All the above outbursts are, however, put into the shade
by the utter ferocity of his ravings against Popery. Painful
indeed are the effects of his gloomy frame of mind on his
attitude towards Rome. The battle-cries, which, in one of
his last wrorks, viz. his " Wider das Babstum vom Teuffel
gestifft," Luther hurls against the Church, which had once
nourished him at her bosom, form one of the saddest
instances of human aberration.

Yet, speaking of this work, the author assures a friend
that, " in this angry book I have done justice neither to
myself nor to the greatness of my anger ; but I am quite
aware that this I shall never be able to do."3 " For no tongue
can tell," so he says, " the appalling and frightful enormities
of the Papal abomination, its substance, quantity, quality,
predicaments, predicables, categories, its species, properties,
differences and accidents."4

1 To Justus Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, ib., p. 439 : " Carlstadii ista sunt
monstra."

2 Ib. : " Furiis furiosis aguntur, quia ira Dei pervenit super eos
usque in finem. Quare ergo propter istos perditos nos conficere volumus ?
Mitte, vadere sicut vadit."

3 To Dr. Ratzeberger, the Elector's physician, Aug. C, 1545,
" Briefe," 5, p. 754.

4 April 14, 1545, ib., a letter not in the least intended as a joke.

HIS LOW SPIRITS 233

The more distorted and monstrous his charges, the more
they seem to have pleased him when in this temper.

In a morbid way he now heaps together his wonted hyperboles
to such an extent, that, at times, it becomes very tiresome to
read his writings and letters ; no hateful image or suspicion
seems to him sufficiently bad. " Though God Himself were to
offer me Paradise for living another forty years, I should prefer
to hire an executioner to chop off my head, for the world is so
wicked ; they are all becoming rank devils."1 He compares his
own times to those which went before the Flood; the "rain of
filth will soon begin " ; he goes on to say that he no longer
understands his own times and finds himself as it were in a strange
world ; " either I have never seen the world, or, while I am
asleep, a new world is born daily ; not one but fancies he is
suffering injustice, and not one but is convinced he does no
injustice."2 With a strange note of contempt he says: "Let
the world be upset, kicked over and thrust aside, seeing it not
only rejects and persecutes God's Word, but rages even against
sound common sense. . . . Even the seven devils of Cologne, who
sit in the highest temple, and who, like some of the council, still
withstand us, will God overthrow, Who breaks down the cedars
of Lebanon. On account of this [the actual and hoped-for suc
cesses at Cologne] we will rejoice in the Lord, because by His
Word He does such great things before our very eyes."3

Here, as elsewhere too, in spite of all his ill-humour, the
progress of his Evangel inspires him with hope. Nor is his
dark mood entirely unbroken, for, from time to time, his
love of a joke gets the better of it. His chief consolation
was, howrever, his self-imposed conviction that his teaching
was the true one.

A certain playfulness is apparent in many of his letters,
for instance, in those to Jonas, one of his most intimate of
friends : " Here is a conundrum," writes Luther to him,
" which my guests ask me to put to you. Does God, the
wise administrator, annually bestow on the children of men
more wine or more milk ? I think more milk ; but do you
give your answer. And a second question : Would a barrel
that reached from Wittenberg to Kemberg be large and
ample enough to hold all the wine that our unwise, silly,
foolish God wastes and throws away on the most ungrateful
of His children, setting it before Henries and Alberts, the

1 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 185. Rebenstock, in Bindseil, I.e.

3 To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 584. Cp. p. 789 : " ne
tandem fiat quod ante diluvium factum esse scribit Moises," etc.

4 /&., p. 585.

234 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Pope and the Turk, all of them men who crucify His Son,
whereas before His own children He sets nothing but water ?
You see that, though I am not much better than a corpse,
I still love to chat and jest with you."1

In the Table-Talk, recently published by Kroker from the
notes taken by Mathesius in the last years of Luther's life,
the latter's irrepressible and saving tendency to jest is very
apparent ; his humour here is also more spontaneous than
in his letters, with the possible exception of some of those
he wrote to Catherine Bora.2

Suspicion and Mania of Persecution

A growing inclination to distrust, to seeing enemies every
where and to indulging in fearsome, superstitious fancies,
stamps with a peculiar impress his prevailing frame of mind.

His vivid imagination even led him, in April, 1544, to
speak of " a league entered into between the Turks and the
most holy, or rather most silly, Pope " ; this was un
doubtedly one of the "great signs" foretold by Christ;
" these signs are here in truth and are truly great."3 " The
Pope would rather adore the Turk," he exclaims later, " nay,
even Satan himself, than allow himself to be put in order
and reformed by God's Word " ; he even finds this con
firmed in a new " Bull or Brief."4 He has heard of the
peace negotiations with the Turks on the part of the Pope
and the Emperor, and of the neutrality of Paul III towards
the Turcophil King of France ; he is horrified to see in
spirit an embassy of peace, " loaded with costly presents
and clad in Turkish garments," wending its way to Con
stantinople, " there to worship the Turk." Such was the
present policy of the Roman Satan, who formerly had used
indulgences, annates and countless other forms of robbery
to curtail the Turkish power. " Out upon these Christians,
out upon these hellish idols of the devil ! "5 — The truth is
that, whereas the Christian States winced at the difficulties

1 Sep. 3, 1541, " Briefe," 5, p. 396.

2 On the psychology of his humour, see below, xxxi., 5.

3 To Justus Jonas, April 17, 1544, " Briefe," 5, p. 642. Cp. p. 629 :
" testes fidelissimi " report an alliance between the Pope, the Turks,
French and Venetians against the Emperor. " Now give a cheer for
the Pope."

4 To Amsdorf, Jan. 9, 1545, " Briefe," 5, p. 713.

5 To Amsdorf, July 17, 1545, ib., p. 750 f.

PAPAL POISONERS 235

or sought for delay, Pope Paul III, faithful to the traditional
policy of the Holy See, insisted that it was necessary to
oppose by every possible means the Turk who was the
Church's foe and threatened Europe with ruin. The only
ground that Luther can have had for his suspicions will
have been the better relations then existing between the
Pope and France which led the Turkish fleet to spare the
Papal territory on the occasion of its demonstration at the
mouth of the Tiber.1

But Luther was convinced that the Pope had no dearer
hope than to thwart Germany, and the Protesters in par
ticular. It was the Pope and the Papists whom he accused to
Duke Albert of Prussia of being behind the Court of Bruns
wick and of hiring, at a high price, the services of assassins
and incendiaries. To Wenceslaus Link he says, that it will
be the priests' own fault if the saying " To death with the
priests " is carried into practice ;2 to Melanchthon he also
writes : "I verily believe that all the priests are bent on
being killed, even against our wish."3 — It was the Papists
sure enough, who introduced the maid Rosina into his
house, in order that she might bring it into disrepute by her
immoral life ;4 they had also sent men to murder him, from
whom, however, God had preserved him ;5 they had like
wise tried to poison him, but all to no purpose.6 We may
reqall how he had said : "I believe that my pulpit-chair
and cushion were frequently poisoned, yet God preserved
me."7 " Many attempts, as I believe, have been made to
poison me."8

He had even once declared that poisoning was a regular
business with Satan : " He can bring death by means of a leaflet
from off a tree ; he has more poison phials and kinds of death at
his beck and call than all the apothecaries in all the world ; if one
poison doesn't work he uses another."9 He had long been con
vinced that the devil was able to carry through the air those who
made themselves over to him; "we must not call in the devil,

1 Cp. Pastor, " Hist, of the Popes " (Engl. Trans.), vol. x.

2 June-July, 1541, " Briefe," 5, p. 379.

3 June, 22, 1541, ib., p. 372.

4 Vol. iii., pp. 217, 280 f.

5 " Colloq,," ed. Bindseil, 3, p. 155.

6 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 423. In 1537.

7 Above, vol. iii., p. 116.

8 " Colloq.," I.e., p. 156. Cp. Rebenstock, in Bindseil, I.e.

9 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 125.

236 LUTHER THE REFORMER

for he comes often enough uncalled, and loves to be by us,
hardened foe of ours though he be. . . . He is indeed a great and
mighty enemy."1 Towards the end of his life, in 1541, it came
to his ears that the devil was more than usually busy with his
poisons: "At Jena and elsewhere," so he warns Melanchthon,
" the devil has let loose his poisoners. It is a wonder to me why
the great, knowing the fury of Satan, are not more watchful.
Here it is impossible any longer to buy or to use anything with
safety." Melanchthon was therefore to be careful when invited
out ; at Erfurt the spices and aromatic drugs on sale in the shops
had been found to be mixed with poison ; at Altenburg as many
as twelve people had died from poison taken in a single meal.
Anxious as he was about his friend, his trust was nevertheless
unshaken in the protection of God and the angels. I myself am
still in the hands of my Moses (Katey), he adds, " suffering from
a filthy discharge from my ear and meditating in turn on life
and on death. God's Will be done. Amen. May you be happy
in the Lord now and for ever."2

" A new art of killing us," so he tells Melanchthon in the same
year, had been invented by Satan, viz. of mixing poison with our
wine and milk ; at Jena twelve persons were said to have died
of poisoned wine, "though more likely of too much drink" ; at
Magdeburg and Nordhausen, however, milk had been found in
the possession of the sellers that seemed to have been poisoned.
" At any rate, all things lie under Christ's feet, and we shall suffer
so long and as much as He pleases. For the nonce we are supreme
and they [the Papist ' monsters '] are hurrying to destruction.
... So long as the Lord of Heaven is at the helm we are safe,
live and reign and have our foes under our feet. Amen." Casting
all fear to the winds he goes on to comfort Melanchthon and his
faint-hearted comrades in the tone of the mystic : " Fear not ;
you are angels, nay, great angels or archangels, working, not for
us but for the Church, nay, for God, Whose cause it is that you
uphold, as even the very gates of hell must admit ; these, though
they may indeed block our way, cannot overcome us, because
at the very beginning of the world the hostile, snarling dragon
was overthrown by the Lion of the tribe of Juda."3

The hostility of the Papists to Lutheranism, had, so
Luther thought, been manifestly punished by Heaven in
the defeat of Henry of Brunswick ; it had " already been
foretold in the prophecies pronounced against him," which
had forecasted his destruction as the " son of perdition " ;
he was a " warning example set up by God for the tyrants

1 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 156.

2 To Melanchthon, April 20, 1541, " Brief e," 5, p. 346 ; " Brief -
wechsel," 13, p. 308.

3 To Melanchthon, March 24, 1541, ib., p. 336 = 279.

SUSPECTS HIS FRIENDS 237

of our days " ; for every contemner of the Word is " plainly
a tyrant."1

Luther was very suspicious of Melanchthon, Bucer and
others who leaned towards the Zwinglian doctrine on the
Supper. So much had Magister Philippus, his one-time
right-hand man, to feel his displeasure and irritability that
the latter bewails his lot of having to dwell as it were " in
the very den of the Cyclopes " and with a real " tyrant."
" There is much in one's intercourse with Luther," so
Cruciger said confidentially, in 1545, in a letter to Veit
Dietrich, "that repels those who have a will of their own
and attach some importance to their own judgment ; if
only he would not, through listening to the gossip of out
siders, take fire so quickly, chiding those who are blameless
and breaking out into fits of temper ; this, often enough,
does harm even in matters of great moment."2 Luther
himself was by no means unwilling to admit his faults in
this direction and endeavoured to make up for them by
occasionally praising his fellow-workers in fulsome terms ;
Yet so deep-seated was his suspicion of Melanchthon's
orthodoxy, that he even thought for a while of embodying
his doctrine on the Sacrament in a formulary, which should
condemn all his opponents and which all his friends, par
ticularly those whom he had reason to mistrust, should be
compelled to sign. This, according to Bucer, would have
involved the departure of Melanchthon into exile. Bucer
expressed his indignation at this projected " abominable
condemnation " and at the treatment meted out to Melanch
thon by Luther.3

Bucer himself was several times the object of Luther's
wrath, for instance, for his part in the " Cologne Book of
Reform " : " It is nothing but a lot of twaddle in which I
clearly detect the influence of that chatterbox Bucer."4
When Jakob Schenk arrived at Wittenberg after a long
absence Luther was so angry with him for not sharing his
views as to refuse to receive him when he called ; he did

1 To Jakob Probst, Pastor at Bremen, Oct. 9, 1542, " Brief e," 5,
p. 501.

2 On Feb. 23, 1545, see Dollinger, " Reformation," 3, p. 269, n. 208,
from MS.

3 Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 582. On Melanchthon, cp. above,
vol. iii., p. 370.

'4 To Chancellor Briick, 1544, " Briefe," 5, p. 708,

238 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the same in the case of Agricola, in spite of the fact that the
latter brought a letter of recommendation from the Margrave
of Brandenburg ; in one of his letters calls him : " the worst
of hypocrites, an impenitent man ! '51 From such a monster,
so he said, he would take nothing but a sentence of con
demnation. As for his former friend Schenk, he ironically
offers him to Bishop Amsdorf as a helper in the ministry.
On both of them he persisted in bestowing his old favourite
nicknames, Jeckel and Grickel (Jakob and Agricola).

Luther's Single-handed Struggle with the Powers of Evil

Owing to the theological opinions reached by some of his
one-time friends Luther, as may well be understood, began to
be oppressed by a feeling of lonesomeness.

The devil, whom he at least suspected of being the cause
of his bodily pains, 2 is now backing the Popish teachers, and
making him to be slighted. But, by so doing, thanks to
Luther's perseverance and bold defiance, he will only
succeed in magnifying Christ the more.

" He hopes to get the better of us or to make us downhearted.
But, as the Germans say, cacabimus in os eius. Willy-nilly, he
shall suffer until his head is crushed, much as he may, with
horrible gnashing of teeth, threaten to devour us. We preach
the Seed of the woman ; Him do we confess and to Him would we
assign the first place, wherefore He is with us."3 In his painful
loneliness he praises " the heavenly Father WTio has hidden these
things [Luther's views on religion] from the wise and prudent and
has revealed them to babes and little ones who cannot talk, let
alone preach, and are neither clever nor learned."4 This he says
in a sermon. The clever doctors, he adds, " want to make God
their pupil ; everyone is anxious to be His schoolmaster and
tutor. And so it has ever been among the heretics. ... In the
Christian churches one bishop nags at the other, and each pastor
snaps at his neighbour. . . . These are the real wiselings of
whom Christ speaks who know a lot about horses' bowels, but
who do not keep to the road which God Himself has traced for
us, but must always go their own little way." Indeed it is the
fate of " everything that God has instituted to be perverted by
the devil," by " saucy folk and clever people." " The devil has
indeed smeared us well over with fools. But they are accounted

1 To Amsdorf, May 2, 1545, ib., p. 734.

2 To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, ib., p. 585 : " an colaphus Satance ? "

3 To Anton Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 599.

4 " Werke," Erl. ed., 202, 2, p. 561 f., in his last sermon, Feb. 14,
1546, on ML xL 25 fL

PORTENTS OF SATAN 239

wise and prudent simply because they rule and hold office in the
Churches."1

Let us leave them alone then and turn our backs on them, no
matter how few we be, for " God will not bear in His Christian
Churches men who twist His Divine Word, even though they
be called Pope, Emperor, Kings, Princes or Doctors. . . . We
ourselves have had much to do with such wiselings, who have
taken it upon themselves to bring about unity or reform."2
" They fancy that because they are in power they have a deeper
insight into Scripture than other people."3 "The devil drives
such men so that they seek their own praise and glory in Holy
Scripture." But do you say : I will listen to a teacher "only so
long as he leads me to the Son of God," the true master and
preceptor, i.e. in other words, so long as he teaches the truth.4

In his confusion of mind Luther does not perceive to what
his proviso " so long as " amounts. It was practically the same
as committing the decision concerning what was good for salvation
to the hands of every man, however ignorant or incapable of
sound judgment. Luther's real criterion remained, however, his
own opinion. " If anyone teaches another Gospel," he says in
this very sermon,6 " contrary to that which we have proclaimed
to you, let him be anathema " (cp. Gal. i. 8). The reason why
people will not listen to him is, as he here tells them, because, by
means of the filth of his arch-knaves and liars, " the devil in the
world misleads and fools all."

Luther was convinced that he was the " last trump,"
which was to herald in the destruction, not only of Satan
and the Papacy, but also of the world itself. " We are weak
and but indifferent trumpeters, but, to the assembly of the
heavenly spirits, ours is a mighty call." " They will obey us
and our trump, and the end of the world will follow. Amen."6

Meanwhile, however, he notes with many misgivings the
manifestations of the evil one. He even intended to collect
in book form the instances of such awe-inspiring portents
(" satance portenta ") and to have them printed.

For this purpose he begged Jonas to send him once more a
detailed account of the case of a certain Frau Rauchhaupt, which
would have come under this category ; he tells his friend that
the object of his new book is to " startle " the people who lull
themselves in such a state of false security that not only do they
scorn the wholesome marvels of the Gospel with which we are
daily overwhelmed, but actually make light of the real " furies
of furies " of the wickedness of the world ; they must read such

1 Ib., p. 562 ff. 2 Ib., p. 565. 3 Ib., p. 564.

4 Ib., p. 566 f. 5 Ib., p. 571.

6 To Ratzeberger, the Elector's medical adviser, Aug. 6, 1545,
" Briefe," 5, p. 754 : " Credo nos esse tubam illam novissimam," etc.

240 LUTHER THE REFORMER

marvellous stories, for " they are too prone to believe neither in
the goodness of God nor in the wickedness of the devil, and too
set on becoming, as indeed they are already, just bellies and
nothing more."1 — Thus, when Lauterbach told him of three
suicides who had ended their lives with the halter, he at once
insisted that it was really Satan who had strung them up while
making them to think that it was they themselves who committed
the crime. " The Prince of this world is everywhere at work."
" God, in permitting such crimes, is causing the wrath of heaven
to play over the world like summer lightning, that ungrateful
men, who fling the Gospel to the winds, may see what is in store
for them." " Such happenings must be brought to the people's
knowledge so that they may learn to fear God."2 Happily the
book that was to have contained these tales of horror never saw
the light ; the author's days were numbered.

The outward signs, whether in the heavens or on the earth,
" whereby Satan seeks to deceive," were now scrutinised by
Luther more superstitiously than ever.

Talking at table about a thunder-clap which had been heard
in winter, he quite agreed with Bugenhagen "that it was down
right Satanic." " People," he complains, " pay no heed to the
portents of this kind which occur without number." Melanchthon
had an experience of this sort before the death of Franz von
Sickingen. Others, whom Luther mentions, saw wonderful
signs in the heavens and armies at grips ; the year before the
coming of the Evangel wonders were seen in the stars ; " these are
in every instance lying portents of Satan ; nothing certain is
foretold by them ; during the last fifteen years there have been
many of them ; the only thing certain is that we have to expect
the coming wrath of God." 3 Years before, the signs in the heavens
and on the earth, for instance the flood promised for 1524, had
seemed to him to forebode the " world upheaval " which his
Evangel would bring.4

Luther shared to the full the superstition of his day. He did
not stand alone when he thus interpreted public events and every
day occurrences. It was the fashion in those days for people,
even in Catholic circles, superstitiously to look out for portents
and signs.

In 15376 Luther relates some far-fetched tales of this sort.
The most devoted servants of the devil are, according to him,
the sorcerers and witches of whom there are many.6 In 1540

1 To Jonas at Halle, Jan. 23, 1542, ib., p. 429.

2 To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542, ib., p. 487.

. 3 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 385 f. (Dec., 1536).

4 To Wenceslaus Link, Jan. 14, 1521, " Brief wechsel," 3, p. 72 :
" videns, rem tumultuosissimo tumultu tumultuantem ; forte hcec est
inundatio ilia prcedicta anno Zlfutura"

5 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 423, concluding : " Videte, tanta est
potentia Sathance in deludendis sensibus externis ; quid faciet in
animabus ? "

6 Cp. N. Paulus, " Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im
16. Jahrh.," 1910, particularly pp. 20 f., 48 ff.

THE END OF THE WORLD 241

he related to his guests how a schoolmaster had summoned the
witches by means of a horse's head.1 " Repeatedly," so he told
them in that same year, " they did their best to harm me and my
Katey, but God preserved us." On another occasion, after
telling some dreadful tales of sorcery, he adds : " The devil is
a mighty spirit." "Did not God and His dear angels intervene,
he would surely slay us with those thunder-clubs of his which
you call thunderbolts."2 In earlier days he had told them, that,
Dr. " Faust, who claimed the devil as his brother-in-law, had
declared that ' if I, Martin Luther, had only shaken hands with
him he would have destroyed me ' ; but I would not have been
afraid of him, but would have shaken hands with him in God's
name and reckoning on God's protection."3

According to him, most noteworthy of all were the diaboli
cal deeds then on the increase which portended a mighty
revulsion and a catastrophe in the world's history. Every
thing, his laboured calculations on the numbers in the
biblical prophecies included, all point to this. Even the
appearance of a new kind of fox in 1545 seemed to him of
such importance that he submitted the case to an expert
huntsman for an opinion. He himself was unable to decide
what it signified, " unless it be that change in all things
which we await and for which we pray."4

The change to which he here and so often elsewhere refers
is the end of the world.

2. Luther's Fanatical Expectation of the End of the
World. His hopeless Pessimism

The excitement with which Luther looks forward to the
approaching end of the world affords a curious psychological
medley of joy and fear, hope and defiance ; his conviction
reposed on a wrong reading of the Bible, on a too high
estimate of his own work, on his sad experience of men and
on his superstitious observance of certain events of the
outside world.

The fact that the end of all was nigh gradually became
an absolute certainty with him. In his latter days it grew
into one of those ideas around which, as around so many

1 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 227. 2 Ib., p. 129.

3 Ib., p. 422, from Lauterbach and Weller's Notes in the summer,
1537.

4 To Amsdorf, June 3, 1545, " Briefe," 5, p. 741. Amsdorf had sent
an inquiry " de monstro illo vulpium"

242 LUTHER THE REFORMER

fixed stars, his other plans, fancies and grounds for consola
tion revolve. To the depth of his conviction his excessive
credulity and that habit — which he shared with his con
temporaries — of reading things into natural events con
tributed not a little.

A remarkable conjunction of the planets in 1524, x " other
signs which have been described elsewhere, such as earthquakes,
pestilences, famines and wars," a predicted flood2 — " all these
signs agree "3 in announcing the great day ; never have " more
numerous and greater signs " occurred during the whole course
of the world's history to vouch for the forthcoming end of the
world.4 " All the firmaments and courses of the heavens are
declining and coming to an end ; the Elbe has stood for a whole
year at the same low level, this also is a portent."5 Such signs
invite us to be watchful.6 Over and above all this we have the
"many gruesome dreams of the Last Judgment" with which he
was plagued in later years.7

He describes to his friends quite confidently the manner of the
coming of the end such as he pictures it to himself: "Early one
morning, about the time of the spring equinox, a thick black
cloud, three lightning flashes and a thunder-clap, and, presto,
everything will lie in ruins," etc. " I am ever awaiting the day."8
"Things may go on for some years longer,"9 perhaps for " five
or six years," but [no more, because " the wickedness of men
has increased so dreadfully within so short a time."10 " We shall
live to see the day " ; Aggeus (ii. 7 f.) says : " Yet a little while
and I will shake the heaven and the earth " ; look around you ;
" surely the State is being shaken . . . the household too, and
even the very mob, item our own very sons and daughters. The
Church too totters."11

" All the great wonders have already taken place ; the Pope
has been unmasked ; the world rages. Nor will things improve
until the Last Day comes. I hope, however, now that the Evangel
is so greatly despised, that the Last Day is no longer far distant,
not more than a hundred years off, God's Word will again
decline . . . and the world will become quite savage and
epicurean."12

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 102, p. 69 f. Kirchenpostille. 2 Ib.

3 To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, "Briefe," 5, p. 612: " congruunt omnia
signa."

4 In the " Chronology of the World," " Werke," Walch's ed., 14,
p. 1278, from the Latin MS. See above, vol. iii., p. 147 f.

6 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 22. 6 Ib., p. 33.

7 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 86.

8 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 208 ; " Historien," p. 143. " Luthers
Werke," Erl. ed., 62, pp. 18, 25, " Tischreden."

9 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1., p. 85.
10 " Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 206.

" Ib., 62, p. 23. 12 Ib., p. 24 f.

THE END OF THE WORLD 243

Reason and Ground of Luther* s Conviction of the near
End of the World

The actual origin and basis of this strange idea are plainly
expressed in the statement last quoted : " The Pope is
unmasked " as Antichrist, such was Luther's starting-point.
Further, " the Evangel is despised," by his own followers
no less than by his foes ; this depressing sight, together with
the sad outlook for religion generally, formed the ground on
which Luther's conviction of the coming cataclysm grew,
particularly when the fall of the Papacy seemed to be
unduly delayed, and its strength to be even on the increase.
The Bible texts which he twists into his service are an out
come rather than the cause of his conviction concerning
Antichrist, while the " signs " in the heavens and on earth
also serve merely to confirm a persuasion derived from
elsewhere.

The starting-point of the idea and the soil on which it
grew deserve to be considered separately.

Luther's views on the unmasking of Antichrist and the
approaching end of the world carry us back to the early
years of his career. Soon after beginning his attack on the
Church, he, over and over again, declared that he had been
called to reveal the Pope as Antichrist.1 His breach with
the ecclesiastical past was so far-reaching that he could not
have expressed his position and indicated the full extent of
his aims better than by so radical an apocalyptic announce
ment. Nor did it sound so entirely strange to the world.
Even according to Wiclif the Papal power was the power of
" Antichrist " and the Roman Church the " Synagogue of
Satan " ; John Hus likewise taught, that it was Anti
christ who, by means of the Papal penalties, was seeking to
affright those who were after "unmasking" him.

The idea of Antichrist in Luther's mind embodied all the
wickedness of the Roman Church which it was his purpose
to unmask, all the religious perversion of which he wished to
make an end, and, in a word, the dominion of the devil
against which he fancied he was to proclaim the last and
decisive combat. When, by dint of insisting in his writings,

1 See above, vol. iii., p. 141 ff., on the rise of his idea of the Pope
as Antichrist.

244 LUTHER THE REFORMER

over and over again, and in the most drastic of ways, on the
Papal Antichrist, the idea came to assume its definitive shape
in his own mind, his announcement of the end of the world
could not be any longer delayed ; for, according to the
generally accepted view, Antichrist was directly to precede
the coming of Christ to Judgment, or at least the latter 's
coming would not be long delayed after the revelation of
Antichrist in his true colours.1 As a rule Antichrist was
taken to be a person ; Luther, however, saw Antichrist in
the Papacy as a whole. Antichrist had had a long spell of
life ; the last Pope would, however, soon fall, he, Luther,
with Christ's help, was preparing his overthrow, then the end
would come — such is the sum of Luther's eschatological
statements during the first period of his career.

Speaking of the end of the world he often says, that the fall
of the Papacy involves it. " Assuredly," he says, the end will
shortly follow on account of the manifest wickedness of the Pope
and the Papists. According to him, the Bible itself teaches that,
" after the downfall of the Pope and the deliverance of the poor,
no one on earth would ever again be a tyrant and inspire fear."
" Tins would not be possible," so Luther thinks, " were the world
to go on after the fall of the Pope, for the world cannot exist
without tyrants. And thus the Prophet agrees with the Apostle,
viz. that Christ, when He comes, will upset the Holy Roman
Chair. God grant it may happen speedily. Amen ! "2

In his fantastic interpretation of the Monk-Calf he declares
in a similar way, that the near end of the world is certain in view
of the abominations of the sinking Papacy and its monkish
system, which last is symbolised in the wonderful calf : " My
wish and hope are that it may mean the Last Day, since many
signs have so far coincided, and the whole world is as it were in
an uproar,"3 the source of the whole to-do being his triumphant
contest with Antichrist. In the same way his conviction of the
magnitude and success of his mission against the foe of Christ
gives the key to his curious reading of Daniel and the Epistle
to the Thessalonians with regard to the time of Antichrist's
advent and the end of the world, which we find set forth quite
seriously in his reply to Catharinus.4 In short, " Antichrist will
be revealed whatever the world may do ; after this Christ must
come with His Judgment Day."6

1 Cp. the index to Walch's edition, vol. xxiii., s.v. " Antichrist " and
" Widerchrist."

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 8, p. 719 ; Erl. ed., 242, p. 203, " Bulla
Coense Domini " (1522), appendix.

3 Cp. Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 646. On the Monk-Calf, see vol. iii.,
p. 149 f. * On this Reply see vol. iii., p. 142.

5 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 72.

THE END OF THE WORLD 245

When the Papacy, instead of collapsing, began to gather
strength and even proceeded to summon a Council, Luther
did not cease foretelling its fall ; he predicts the end of the
world in terms even stronger than before, though the reason
he assigns for his forebodings is more and more the " con
tempt shown for the Word," i.e. for his teaching and
exhortations. Disgust, disappointment and the gloomy
outlook for the future of his work are now his chief grounds
for expecting the end of all and for ardently hoping that the
Day will soon dawn. ... It is the self-seeking and vice so
prevalent in his own fold which wrings from him the exclama
tion : "It must soon come to a head,"1 for things cannot
long go on thus.

The last temptation which shall assail the faithful, he says,
will be "an undisciplined life " ; then we shall " grow sick of
the Word and disgusted with it." " Not even the Word of God
will they endure ; . . . the Gospel which they [his own people]
once confessed, they now look upon as merely the word of man."
" Do you fancy you are out of the world, or that Satan, the
Prince of this world, has died or been crucified in you ? "2 It is
bitter experience that causes him to say : " The day will dawn
when Christ shall come to free us from sin and death."3 " May
the world go to rack and ruin and be utterly blotted out," "the
world which has shown me such gratitude during my own life
time ! "4 "May the Lord call me away, for I have done, and
seen, and suffered enough evil."5 " Would that the Lord would
put an end to the great misery [that among us each one does as
he pleases] ! Oh that the day of our deliverance would come ! "6
" The people have waxed cold towards the Evangel. . . . May
Christ mend all things and hasten the Day of His Coming."7

" It is a wonder to me what the world does to-day," he said,
alluding to the turmoil in the newly acquired bishopric of Naum-
burg ; he then goes on to complain in the words already given
(p. 233), that a new world is growing up around him ; no one
will admit of having done wrong, of having lied or sinned ; those
only who meet with injustice are reputed unrighteous, liars and
sinners. Verily it would soon rain filth. " The day of our re
demption draweth nigh. Amen." " The world will rage, but

1 To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 612.

2 To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, ib., p. 398.

3 To Jonas, March 13, 1542, ib., p. 445.

4 To Jonas, Feb. 25, 1542, ib., p. 439.

5 To Jonas, May 3, 1541, " Brief wechsel," 13, p. 328 : " Ego et
cegrotus et pcene morosus sum, tcedio rerum et morborum. Utinam me
Deus evocet misericorditer ad sese. Satis malorum fed, vidi, passus swm."

8 To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 551 : " ubique
grassatur licentia et petulantia vulgi." Cp. p. 552.

7 To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543, ib., p. 569.

246 LUTHER THE REFORMER

good-bye to it" I1 — "The world is indeed a contemptible thing,"
he groans, after describing the morals of Wittenberg.2

The conduct of the great ones at the Saxon Court led him to
surmise that " soon," after but a few days, hell would be their
portion.3 For those who infringe the rights of his Church he has
a similar sentence ready : " Hell will be your share. Come,
Lord Jesus, come, listen to the groaning of Thy people, and
hasten Thy coming ! "• -" Farewell and teach your people to
pray for the day of the Lord ; for of better times there is no
longer any hope."4

" During our lifetime," he laments in 1545, " and under our
very eyes, we see sects and dissensions arising, each one wishing
to follow his own fancy. In short, contempt for the Word on our
own side and blasphemy on the other seem to me to announce
the times of which John the Baptist spoke to the people, saying :
' The axe is laid to the root of the tree,' etc. Accordingly, since
the end at least of this happy age is imminent, there seems no
call to]|bother much about setting up, or coming to an under
standing regarding, those troublesome ceremonies."5

In fact, he is determined not " to bother much," not
merely about the " ceremonies," but about the whole
question of Church organisation, for of what use doing so
when the signs of the general end of all are increasing at
such a rate ? "To set up laws " is, according to him, quite
impracticable ; let everything settle itself " according to the
law of God by means of the inspection."6

" To Luther the end which Christ was about to put to
this wicked world seemed so near," so we read in Kostlin-
Kawerau's biography,7 " that he never contemplated any
progressive development and expansion of Christendom and
the Church, nor was he at all anxious about the possible ups
and downs which might accompany such development. . . .
It is just in his later years that we find him more firmly
established than ever in the belief, that the world will always
remain the world and that it must be left to the Lord to
take what course He pleases with it and with His Christen
dom, until the coming of the ' longed-for Last Day.' '

At any rate, since the sectarians in his own camp and the
various centrifugal forces inherent in his creation made
impossible any real organisation, he was all the more ready

To Amsdorf, Aug. 18, 1543, ib., p. 584.

To Jonas, June 18, 1543, ib., p. 570.

To Lauterbach, Nov. 3, 1543, ib., p. 599.

To Jonas, Dec. 16, 1543, ib., p. 610.

To Duke George of Anhalt, July 10, 1545, ib.t 6, p. 370. 6 Ib.

Vol. ii,, p. 522.

THE END OF THE WORLD 247

to welcome the thought of the end of the world in that it
distracted his mind from the sad state of things.

On the top of the schisms and immorality of the people
there was also the avarice of those in high places, which
roused his hatred and contributed to make him sigh for the
coming of the Day.

" They all rage against God and His Messias." " This is the
work of those centaurs, the foes of the Church, kept in store for
the latter days. They are more insatiable than hell itself. But
Christ, Who will shortly come in His glory, will quiet them, not
indeed with gold, but with brimstone and flames of hell, and with
the wrath of God."1 It was his displeasure against some of the
authorities which wrung from him the words : " But the end is
close at hand," the end which will also spell the end of " all this
seizing — or rather thieving greed for Church property — of the
Princes, nobles and magistrates, hateful and execrable that it is."2
Taking this in conjunction with the attitude of the Catholic
rulers he could say with greater confidence than ever : " Nothing
good is to be hoped for any more but this alone, that the day of
the glory of our great God and our Redeemer may speedily
break upon us." " From so Satanic a world " he would fain be
" quickly snatched," longing as he does for the Day and for the
" end of Satan's raging."3

The End of the World in the Table-Talk

In the above we have drawn on Luther's letters. If we
turn to his Table-Talk, particularly to that dating from his
later years, we find that there, too, his frequent allusions to
the approaching end of the world are as a rule connected
with his experience of the corruption in his surroundings,
especially at Wittenberg. The carelessness of the young is
sufficient to make him long for the Last Day, which alone
seemed to promise any help.

To Melanchthon, who, with much concern, had drawn his
attention to the lawlessness of the students, Luther poured out
his soul, as we read in Lauterbach's Diary : As the students were
growing daily wilder he hoped that, "if God wills, the Last Day
be not far off, the Day which shall put an end to all things."4
" The ingratitude and profanity of the world," he also says,
" makes me apprehend that this light [of the Evangel] will not
last long." " The refinement of malice, thanklessness and dis-

1 To Lauterbach, Feb. 9, 1544, " Briefe," 5, p. 629.

2 To Amsdorf, June 23, 1544, ib., p. 670.

3 To Probst, Dec. 5, 1544, ib., p. 703.

4 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch " (1538), p. 34.

248 LUTHER THE REFORMER

respect shown towards the Gospel now revealed " is so great
" that the Last Day cannot be far off."1

In his Table-Talk, where Luther is naturally more communi
cative than in his letters, we see even more plainly how deeply
the idea of the approaching Day of Judgment had sunk into his
mind and under how curious a shape it there abides. " Things
will get so bad on this earth," he says, for instance, " that men
will cry out everywhere : O God, come with Thy Last Judgment."
He would not mind " eating the agate Paternoster " (a string of
beads he wore round his neck) if only that would make the Day
"come on the morrow."2 "The end is at the door," he con
tinues, " the world is on the lees ; if anyone wants to begin
something let him hurry up and make a start."3 "The next
day he again spoke much of the end of the world, having had
many evil dreams of the Last Judgment during the previous six
months " ; it was imminent, for Scripture said so ; the present
hangs like a ripe apple on the tree ; the Roman Empire, " the
last sweet-william" would also soon tumble to the ground.4

In 1530 Luther was disposed to regard the Roman Empire
under Charles V with a rather more favourable eye. His im
pression then was that the Empire, " under our Emperor Carol,
is beginning to look up and becoming more powerful than it was
for many a year " ; yet strange to say he knew how to bring
even this fact into connection with the Judgment Day ; for this
strengthening of the Empire " seems to me," so he goes on, " like
a sort of last effort ; for when a light or wisp of straw has burnt
down and is about to go out it sends up a flame and seems just
about to flare up bravely when suddenly it dies out ; this is
what Christendom is now doing thanks to the bright Evangel."6
Hence all he could see was the last flicker both of the Empire and
of the new teaching before final extinction.

The noteworthy utterance about the last flicker of the Lutheran
Evangel occurs also in the Table-Talk collected by Mathesius
dating from the years 1542 and 1543. " I believe that the Last
Day is not far off. The reason is that we now see the last effort
of the Evangel ; this resembles a light ; when a light is about to
expire it sends up at the last a sudden flame as though it were
going to burn for quite a long while and thereupon goes out.
And, though it appears now as though the Evangel were about
to be spread abroad, I fear it will suddenly expire and the Last
Day come. It is the same with a sick man ; when at the point
of death he seems quite cheerful and on the high road to recovery,
and, then, suddenly, he is gone."6

The Table-Talk from the Mathesius collection recently pub-

1 P. 172 f.

2 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," (1531 and 1532), p. 17.

3 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 85, 86.

4 Ib., p. 86.

5 " Werke," Erl. ed., 41, p. 233.

6 Mathesius, " Tischreden," ed. Kroker, p. 282. Cp. Mathesius,
" Aufzeichn.," ed. Lcesche, p. 393.

THE END OF THE WORLD 249

lished by Kroker, among other curious utterances of Luther's
on the end of the world, contains also the following :

In view of the dissensions by which the new Evangel was torn
the speaker says, in 1542-43 : "If the world goes on for another
fifty years things will become worse than ever, for sects will
arise which still lie hidden in the hearts of men, so that we shall
not know where we stand. Hence, dear Lord, come ! Come and
overwhelm them with Thy Judgment Day, for no improvement
is any longer to be looked for."1

Here too he repeatedly declares that he himself is tired of the
world : " I have had enough of the world," he says, and goes on
to introduce the ugly comparison alluded to above. 2 He adds :
"The world fancies that if only it were rid of me all would be
well." He is saddened to see that many of his followers make
little account of him : "If the Princes and gentry won't do it,
then things will not last long."3 Of the want of respect shown to
his preachers he says : " Where there is such contempt of the
Divine Word and of the preachers, shall not God smite with His
fist ? " " But if we preachers were to meet and agree amongst
ourselves, as has been done in the Papacy, there would be less
need for this. The worst of it is that they are not at one
even amongst themselves." He finds a makeshift consolation
for the divergency in teaching in the thought that "so it always
was even from the beginning of the world, preachers always having
disagreed amongst themselves." "There is a bad time coming,
look you to it " ; things may go on for another fifty years now
that the young have been brought up in his doctrine, but, after
that, " let them look out. Hence, let no one fear the plague, but
rather be glad to die."4 Not only did he look forward to his own
death, but, as we know, to that of " all his children," seeing that
strange things would happen in the world.5

We have heard him say, that it was a mercy for the young,
that, being thoughtless and without experience, they did not see
the harm caused by the scandals, " else they could not endure
to live."6 And, that the world could "not possibly last long."
Its hours are numbered, for, thanks to me, " everything has now
been put straight. The Gospel has been revealed."7

" Christ said, that, at His coming, faith would be hard to find
on the earth (Luke xviii. 8). That is true, for the whole of Asia
and Africa is without the Evangel, and even as regards Europe
no Gospel is preached in Greece, Italy, Hungary, Spain, France,
England or Poland. The one little bright spot, the house of
Saxony, will not hinder the coming of the Last Day."8

" Praise be to God Who has taught us to sigh after it and long
for it ! In Popery everybody dreads it."9

" Amen, so be it, Amen ! " so he sighed in 1543 in a letter to

1 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 287. 2 Above, p. 229.

3 Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 131.

4 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 289. 5 Ib., p. 288.
6 Ib., p. 179. 7 Ib., p. 108. 8 Ib., p. 209.
9 Ib., p. 111.

250 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Amsdorf alluding to the end of the world. " The world was just
like this before the Flood, before the Babylonian captivity, before
the destruction of Jerusalem, before the devastation of Rome
and before the misfortunes of Greece and Hungary ; so it will
be and so it is before the ruin of Germany too. They refuse to
listen, so they must be made to feel. I should be glad to console
ourselves both, by discussing this thought [of the contempt of the
Papists for us] with you by word of mouth." " We will leave
them in the lurch " and cease from attempting their conversion.
" Farewell in the Lord, Who is our Helper and Who will help us
for ever and ever. Amen."1

" Under the Pope," we read in the Colloquies, " at least the
name of Christ was retained, but our thanklessness and presump
tuous sense of security will bring things to such a pass that Christ
will be no longer even named, and so the words of the Master
already quoted will be fulfilled according to which, at His coming,
no faith will remain on the earth."2

As to the circumstances which should accompany the end of
the world, he still expected the catastrophe to take place most
likely about Easter time, "early in the morning, after a thunder
storm of an hour or perhaps a little more."3

Here he no longer gives the world " a bare hundred years
more," nor even something "not more than fifty years";4 he
almost expects the end to come before the completion of his
translation of the Bible into German.5 The world will certainly
not last until 1548, so he declared, " for this would run counter
to Ezechiel."6 He is not quite sure whether the Golden Age
begins in 1540 or not, though such was the contention of the
mathematicians ; but " we shall see the fulfilment of Scripture,"7
or at any rate, as he prudently adds elsewhere, our descendants
will. But before this can come the " great light " of faith would
have to be dimmed still more.8

Luther concludes by saying that he is unable to suggest any
thing further ; he had done all he could ; God's vengeance on
the world was so great, he declares, that he could no longer give
any advice ; for " amongst us whom God has treated so merci
fully and on whom He has bestowed all His Graces there is
nothing left that is not corrupted and perverted."9 " On divine
authority we began to amend the world, but it refuses to hearken ;
hence let it crumble to ruins, for such is its fate ! " 10

In his predictions concerning the end of the world Luther
did not sufficiently take to heart the mishap which befell his
pupil and friend Michael Stiefel, though he himself had been

To Amsdorf, Nov. 7, 1543, " Briefe," 5, p. 600.

" Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 87. 3 Ib., p. 89.

Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 172 f.

" Werke," Erl. ed., 41, p. 233.

Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 130.

" Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 86. 8 Ib., p. 87.

" Werke," Erl. ed., 57, p. 95 f. 10 Schlaginhaufen, ib., p. 30.

THE END OF THE WORLD 251

at pains to reprove him. Stiefel had calculated that the
end of the world would come at 8 a.m. on Oct. 19, 1533, at
which hour he and his parishioners awaited it assembled in
the church at Lochau. Their watch was, however, in vain ;
the world continued to go its way and the Court judged it
expedient to remove the preacher for a while from his post.

Taking these eschatological ideas or rather ardent wishes
of Luther's later life in all their bearings, and giving due
weight to the almost unbounded dominion they exercised
over his mind, one might well incline to see in them signs
of an unhealthy and overwrought mind. They seem to have
been due to excessive mental strain, to the reaction following
on the labours of his long life's struggle in the cause of his
mission. It is not unlikely that pathology played some
part in the depression from which he suffered.

His early theological development also throws some light
on the psychological problem, owing to a parallel which
it affords.

The middle-point and mainstay of his theology, viz. his
doctrine of Justification, was wholly a result of his own per
sonal feelings; after cutting it, so to speak, to his own measure
he proceeded to make it something of world-wide application,
a doctrine which should rule every detail of religious life,
and around which all theology should cluster if it is to be
properly understood. In a similar way, after beginning by
adapting to his own case the theory of the near end of the
world — to which he was early addicted — he gradually came
to find in it the clue wherewith to unravel all the knotty
problems which began to present themselves. It became his
favourite plan to regard everything in the light of the end
of the world and advent of Christ. Just as he was fond of
asseverating, in spite of all the contradictions it involved,
that he could find in his dogma of Justification endless
comfort for both himself and the faithful, so, too, he came
to regard the Last Day, in spite of all its terrors, as the
source of the highest, nay, of the only remaining, joy of life,
for himself and for all. With a vehemence incompre
hensible to sober reason he allowed himself to be carried
away by this idea as he had been by others. Such was his
temperament that he could rejoice in the coming of the
Judge, Who should deliver him from the bonds of despair.

Hence Luther's expectation of the end of the world was

252 LUTHER THE REFORMER

something very different from that of certain Saints of
whom Church-history tells us. Pope Gregory I or Vincent
Ferrer were not moved to foretell the approaching end of
the world by disgust with life, by disappointment, or as a
result of waging an unequal struggle with the Church of
their day, nor again because they regarded the destruction
of the world as the only escape from the confusion they
had brought about. Nor do they speak of the end of the
world with any fanatical expectation of their own personal
salvation, but rather with a mixture of fear and calm trust
in God's bounty to the righteous ; they have none of
Luther's pessimism concerning the world, and, far from
desiring things to " take their course,"1 they exerted every
nerve to ensure the everlasting salvation of as many of their
fellow-creatures as possible before the advent of the Judge ;
to this end they had recourse to preaching and the means
of grace provided by the Church and insisted greatly on the
call for faith and good works. Above all, they gave a speak
ing proof of their faith by their works and by the inspiring
example of heroic sanctity.

3. Melanchthon under the Double Burden, of Luther's
Personality and his own Life's Work

The personality of Luther counts for much among the
trials which embittered Melanchthon's life.

The passages already quoted witnessing thereto2 must
here be supplemented by what he himself says of his experi
ences at Luther's side, in a letter he wrote in 1548 to the
councillor Carlowitz and the Court of Saxony. There was
some doubt as to what attitude Melanchthon would adopt
towards Maurice of Saxony, the new sovereign, the victor of
the Schmalkalden War, and to his demands in the matter
of religion.

In the letter, which to say the least is very conciliatory,
Melanchthon says that he will know how to keep silence on any
ecclesiastical regulations, no matter how distasteful to him they
may be : for he knew what it was " to endure even a truly
ignominious bondage, Luther having frequently given the rein
to his own natural disposition, which was not a little quarrelsome,
instead of showing due consideration for his own position and
the general welfare." He goes on to explain the nature of the

1 See above, p. 226. 2 Above, vol. iii., p. 362 ff.

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 253

habit of silence he had so thoroughly mastered ; it meant no
sacrifice of his own doctrine and views (" non mutato genere
doctrince "). For twenty long years, so he complains, he had been
obliged to bear the reproaches of the zealots of the party because
he had toned down certain doctrines and had ventured to differ
from Luther ; they had called him ice and frost, accused him of
being in league with the Papists, nay, of being ambitious to secure
a Cardinal's hat. Yet he had never had the slightest inclination
to go over to the Catholics, for they " were guilty of cruel injustice."
He must, however, say that he, who by nature was a lover of
peace and the quiet of the study, had only been drawn into the
movement of which Luther was the leader because he, like many
wise and learned contemporaries, thought he discerned in it a
striving after that truth for which he thirsted and for which he
lived. Luther it was true, had, from the very first, introduced
a " rougher element into the cause " ; he himself, however, had
made it his aim to set up only what was true and essentially
necessary ; he had also done much in the way of reforms, and, to
boot, had waged a war against the demagogues (" multa tribunitia
plebs ") which, owing to the attacks of enemies at Court, had
drawn down on him the displeasure of the sovereign and had
even put his life in jeopardy.

Coming finally to speak of the concessions, speculative and prac
tical, which he was prepared to make in addition to preserving
silence, he mentions " the authority to be conceded to the bishops
and the chief bishop in accordance with the Augsburg Confes
sion." He adds : " Mayhap I am by nature of a servile turn of
mind " ("fortassis sum ingenio servili "), but, after all there is a real
call to be humble and open to advances. He also refers to the
defeat of the Evangelical Princes, but only to assure Carlowitz
that he attributes this, " not to blind fate, but rather admit that
we have drawn down the chastisement on ourselves by many
and great misdeeds."1

This is the oft-quoted declaration which Protestant writers as
a whole regret more on Melanchthon's than on Luther's account.
It was " an unhappy hour " in which Melanchthon wrote the
letter " which gives us so profound an insight into his soul " ;2 he
forgot that he was " a public character " ; "in this letter not
only what he says of Luther and of his relations with him, but
even his account of the share he himself took in the Reformation,"
" is scarcely to his credit."3

Another Protestant holds, however, a different view. In this
letter we have, as a matter of fact, "the expression of feelings
which for long years Melanchthon had most carefully kept under
restraint locked up in his heart. . . . From it we may judge how
great was the vexation and bitterness Melanchthon had to

1 April 28, 1548, " Corp. ref.," 6, p. 879 sqq.

2 G. Kawerau, " Luthers Stellung zu den Zeitgenossen Erasmus,
Zwingli und Melanchthon " (Reprint from " Deutsch-evang. Bl.,"
1906, 1-3), p. 30.

f
fs,

3 F. Loofs, " DG.," 4, 1906, p. 866, n. 3.

254 LUTHER THE REFORMER

endure. ... In an unguarded moment what had been so long
pent up broke out with elemental force." The historian we are
quoting then goes on to plead for a " milder sentence," especially
as " almost every statement which occurs in the letter can be
confirmed from Melanchthon's confidential correspondence of
the previous twenty years."1

Some of Melanchthon's Deliverances

It is quite true, that, in his confidential correspondence,
Melanchthon had long before made allusions to the awkward
ness of his position.

He says, for instance, in a letter to the famous physician
Leonard Fuchs, who wanted him to take up his abode at
Tubingen : " Some Fate has, as it were, bound me fast
against my will, like hapless Prometheus," bound to the
Caucasian rock, of whom the classic myth speaks. Never
theless, he had not lost hope of sometime cutting himself
free ; happy indeed would he account himself could he
find a quiet home amongst his friends at Tubingen where
he might devote his last years to study.2

On a later occasion, when bewailing his lot, the image of
Prometheus again obtrudes itself on the scholar.3

Melanchthon's uneasiness and discontent with his position
did not merely arise from the mental oppression he experi
enced at Luther's side ; it was, as already pointed out, in
part due to sundry other factors, such as the persecution
he endured from disputatious theologians within the party,
the sight of the growing confusion which met his eye day
by day, the public dangers and the moral results of the
religious upheaval, and, lastly, the depressing sense of being
out of the element where his learning and humanistic
tastes might have found full and unhampered scope. His
complaints dwell, now on one, now on some other of these
trials, but, taken together, they combine to make up a
tragic historical picture of a soul distraught ; this is all the
more surprising, since, owing to the large share he had in
the introduction of the new Evangel, the cheering side of the

1 G. Ellinger, " Melanchthon," 1902, p. 535 f.

2 Nov. 12, 1538, " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 606.

3 To Gelous, May 20, 1559, ib., 9, p. 822 : " Pendeo velut ad Cau-
casum adfixus, etsi verius sum e7n/j.r)d€vs quam -rrpo^dev^ et laceror, non
ut ille vulturibus tantum, sed etiam a cuculis."

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 255

great religious reform should surely have been reflected in
Melanchthon.

"It is not fitting," writes the Protestant theologian Carl
Sell, " to throw a veil over the sad close of Melanchthon's
life, for it was but the logical consequence of his own train
of thought." Luther's theology, of the defects of which
Melanchthon was acutely conscious, had, according to Sell,
" already begun to break down as an adequate theory of
life " ;l of the forthcoming disintegration Luther's colleague
already had a premonition.

In Aug., 1536, when Melanchthon paid a visit to his home and
also to Tubingen, he became more closely acquainted with the
state of the Protestant Churches, both in the Palatinate and in
Swabia. It was at that time that he wrote to his friend Myconius :
" Had you travelled with us and seen the woeful devastation of
the Churches in many localities you would undoubtedly long,
with tears and groans, for the Princes and the learned to take
steps for the welfare of the Churches. At Nuremberg the good
attendance at public worship and the orderly arrangement of the
ceremonies pleased me greatly ; elsewhere, however, lack of
order and general barbarism is wonderfully estranging the people
[from religion ; ' Arabia et barbaries minim in modum alienat
animos']. Oh, that the authorities would see to the remedying
of this evil! "2

After he had reluctantly resumed the burden of his Wittenberg
office he continued to fret about the dissensions in his own camp.
" Look," he wrote to Veit Dietrich in 1537, " how great is the
danger to which the Churches are everywhere exposed and how
difficult it is to govern them, when those in authority are at grips
with one another and set up strife and confusion, whereas it is
from them that we should look for help. . . . What we have to
endure is worse than all the trials of Odysseus the sufferer."3

In the following year he told the same friend the real evil was,
that " we live like gipsies, no one being willing to obey another
in any single thing."4

In the name of Wittenberg University he wrote to Mohr, the
Naumburg preacher, who was quarrelling with his brethren in
the ministry, " What is to happen in future if, for so trivial a
matter, such wild and angry broils break out amongst those who
govern the Church ? "5

The growing tendency to strife he describes in 1544 in these
words : " There are at present many people whose quarrels are

1 C. Sell, " Philipp Melanchthon und die deutsche Reformation bis
1531 " (" Schriften des Vereins f. RG.," 14, 3, 1897), p. 117.

2 Nov. 13, 1536, " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 187.

3 Dec. 7, 1537, ib., p. 460. 4 Feb. 13, 1538, ib., p. 488.

5 June 24, 1545, ib., 5, p. 776 : " tarn atrocia certamina inter
collegas"

256 LUTHER THE REFORMER

both countless and endless, and who everywhere find a pretext
for them."1

Many of his complaints concerning the morals of the time, as
Dollinger remarks, sound very much like those of a " sworn
Catholic criticising the state of affairs brought about by the
Reformation." Dollinger also calls attention to the saying of
1537 : " The only glory remaining in this iron age is that of
boldly breaking down the barriers of discipline (' audacter dissipare
vincula discipline ' ) and of propounding to the people new opinions
neatly cut and coloured."2 A similar dictum dates from 1538.
" Our age, as you can see, is full of malice and madness, and more
addicted to intrigue than any previous one. The man who is
most shameless in his abuse is regarded as the best orator. Oh,
that God would change this ! "3 The growing evils made him
more and more downhearted. " People have become barbarians,"
he exclaims twelve years later to his friend Camerarius, " and,
accustomed as they are to hatred and contempt of law and order,
fear lest any restraint be put on their licentiousness (' metuunt
frenari licentiam'). These are the evils decreed for the last age of
the world."4

Over and over again we can see how the timorous man en
deavours to clear the religious innovations of any responsibility
for the prevalent lawlessness, which, as he says, deserved to be
bewailed with floods of tears ; after all, the true Church had been
revived ; this edifice, this temple of God, still remained amidst
all the chaos ; even in Noe's day it had been exposed to damage.5
At times, though less frequently than Luther, he lays all the
blame on Satan ; the latter, by means of the scandals, was seek
ing to scare people away from the true Evangel now brought to
light, and to vex the preachers into holding their tongues.

Pessimistic consideration of the " last age of the world " was
quite in his line ; the dark though not altogether unfriendly
shadow of the approaching end of all was discernible in the
moral disorders, in the unbelief and anti-christian spirit of the
foe. He would not dwell, so he once said, on the state of things
among the people towards whom he was willing to be indulgent,
but it could not be gainsaid that, " among the learned open con
tempt for religion was on the increase ; they lean either towards
the Epicureans or towards universal scepticism. Forgetfulness
of God, the wickedness of the times, the senseless fury of the
Princes, all unite in proving that the world lies in the pains of
travail and that the joyous coming of Christ is nigh."6 It was
his hopelessness and the great solace he derived from the approach
ing end of all things that called forth this frame of mind. It is

1 Dec. 25, 1544, to Camerarius, " Corp. ref.," 5, p. 554.

2 " Die Reformation," 1, p. 376.

3 Oct. 11, 1538, to Caspar Borner, " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 596.

4 April 30, 1550, ib., 7, p. 580.

5 Cp. Dollinger, ib., 1, p. 379 f.

6 From a New- Year's letter (Jan. 1, 1540) to Veit Dietrich, " Corp.
ref.," 3, p. 895,

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 257

also plain that he saw no prospect of improvement. " In these
last days," he says, even a zealous preacher can no longer hope
for success, though this does not give him the right to quit his
post.1 The poetic reference to the frenzied old age of the world
(" delira mundi senecta ") is several times met with in his letters.

In 1537 he grumbled to Johann Brenz, the preacher, of
the hostility of the theologians, especially of the Luther-
zealots ; he had seen what hatred the mitigations he had
introduced in Luther's doctrines had excited. " I conceal
everything beneath the cloak of my moderation, but what
shall I do eventually faced by the rage of so many (' in tanta
rabie multorum ') ? "2 "I seek for a creephole," he con
tinues, " may God but show me one, for I am worn out
with illness, old age and sorrow."

Of Amsdorf he learnt with pain that he had warned
Luther against him as a serpent whom he was warming in
his bosom.3

Andreas Osiander likewise wrote of Melanchthon to
Resold at Nuremberg, that, since Apostolic times, no more
mischievous and pernicious man had lived in the Church,
so skilful was he in giving to his writings the semblance of
wholesome doctrine while all the time denying its truth.
" I believe that Philip and those who think like him are
nothing but slaves of Satan." On another occasion the
same bitter opponent of Melanchthon inveighs against the
religious despotism which now replaced at Wittenberg the
former Papal authority, a new tyranny which required, that
" all disputes should be submitted to the elders of the
Church."4 — It was men such as these who repaid him for
the labours he had reluctantly undertaken on behalf of the
Church. Of their bitter opposition he wrote, that, even
were he to shed as many tears as there was water in the
flooded Elbe, he would still not be able to weep away
his grief.5

1 Sept. 9, 1541, to Veit Dietrich, ib., 4, p. 654, where he continues :
" Tegere hcec soleo, sed, mihi crede, manent cicatrices"

2 About July 16, 1537, " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 390 sq. Before this he
had said in humanistic style : " Video novum quoddam genus sophis-
tarum nasci ; velut ex gigantum sanguine alii gigantes nati sunt. . . .
Metuo maiores ecclesice motus. Hie cum hydra decerto. Uno represso
alii tnulti exoriuntur."

3 " Corp. ref.," 3, p. 503 sqq. Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 451.

4 Cp. " RE. f. prot. Th.," 3, Art. " Melanchthon," p. 523.

5 Cp. Dollinger, "Reformation," 1, p. 394.

258 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Melanchthori 's Strictures on Luther. His " Bondage "

If we consider more closely Melanchthon's relations with
Luther we find him, even during Luther's lifetime, in
dignantly describing the latter's attacks on man's free-will
as " stoica et manichcea deliria " ; he himself, he declares, in
spite of Luther's views to the contrary, had always insisted
that man, even before regeneration, is able by virtue of his
free-will to observe outward discipline and, that, in regenera
tion, free-will follows on grace and thereafter receives from
on High help for doing what is good. Later, after Luther's
death, he declared, with regard to this denial of free-will
which shocked him, that it was quite true that " Luther and
others had written that all works, good and bad, were
inevitably decreed to be performed of all men, good and bad
alike ; but it is plain that this is against God's Word,
subversive of all discipline and a blasphemy against God."1

In a letter of 1535 to Johann Sturm he finds fault with the
harshness of Luther's doctrine and with his manner of defending
it, though, from motives of caution, he refrains from mentioning
Luther by name. He himself, however, was looked upon at the
Court of the Elector as " less violent and stubborn than some
others " ; it was just because they fancied him useful as a sort
of valve, as they called it, that they refused to release him from
his professorial chair at Wittenberg. And such is really the case.
" I never think it right to quarrel unless about something of great
importance and quite essential. To support every theory and
extravagant opinion that takes the field has never been my way.
Would that the learned were permitted to speak out more freely
on matters of importance ! " But, instead of this, people ran
after their own fancies. There was no doubt that, at times, even
some of their own acted without forethought. " On account of
my moderation I am in great danger from our own people . . . and
it seems to me that the fate of Theramenes awaits me."2 Thera-
menes had perished on the scaffold in a good cause — but before
this had been guilty of grievous infidelity and was a disreputable
intriguer. Of this Melanchthon can scarcely have been aware,
otherwise he would surely have chosen some less invidious term
of comparison. He was happier in his selection when, in 1544,
he compared himself to Aristides on account of the risk he ran
of being sent into exile by Luther : " Soon you will hear that I
have been sent away from here as Aristides was from Athens."3

1 On March 9, 1559, to the Elector August of Saxony, " Corp. ref.,"
9, p. 766 sq. Cp. " RE.," ib., p. 525.

2 As early as Aug. 28, 1535, " Corp. ref.," 2, p. 917.

3 Sep. 8, 1544, to Peter Medmann, ib., 5, p. 478.

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 259

Especially after 1538, i.e. during the last eight years of Luther's
life, Melanchthon's stay at Wittenberg was rendered exceedingly
unpleasant. In 1538 he reminds Veit Dietrich of the state of
bondage (8ov\6rTjs) of which the latter had gleaned some ac
quaintance while in Wittenberg (1522-35) ; " and yet," he con
tinues, " Luther has since become much worse."1 In later letters
he likens Luther to the demagogue Cleon and to boisterous
Hercules. 2

Although it was no easy task for Luther, whose irritability
increased with advancing years, to conceal his annoyance
with his friend for presuming to differ from him, yet, as we
know, he never allowed matters to come to an open breach.
Melanchthon, too, owing to his fears and pusillanimity,
avoided any definite personal explanation. Both alike were
apprehensive of the scandal of an open rupture and its
pernicious effects on the common cause. Moreover, Luther
was thoroughly convinced that Melanchthon's services were
indispensable to him, particularly in view of the gloomy
outlook for the future.

The matter, however, deserves further examination in
view of the straightforwardness, clearness and inexorable-
ness which Luther is usually supposed to have displayed in
his doctrines.

When important interests connected with his position
seemed to call for it, Luther could be surprisingly lenient
in questions of doctrine. Thus, for instance, we can hardly
recognise the once so rigid Luther in the Concord signed
with the Zwinglians, and again, when, for a while, the
English seemed to be dallying with Lutheranism. In the
case of the Zwinglian townships of South Germany, which
were received into the Union by the Wittenberg Concord
the better to strengthen the position of Lutheranism against
the Emperor, Luther finally, albeit grudgingly, gave his
assent to theological articles which differed so widely from
his own doctrines that the utmost skill was required to
conceal the discrepancy.3 As for the English, Kolde says :
" How far Luther was prepared to go [in allowing matters
to take their course] we see, e.g. from the fact that, in his
letter of March 28, 1536, to the Elector, he describes the
draft Articles of agreement with the English — only recently

1 Oct. 6, 1538, ib., 3, p. 594.

2 See Dollinger, " Reformation," 1, p. 354, and 3, p. 270.

3 See above, vol. iii., p. 421 f.

260 LUTHER THE REFORMER

made public and which (apart from Art. 10, which might at
a pinch be taken in the Roman sense) are altogether on the
lines of the ' Variola ' — as quite in harmony with our own
teaching."1 The terms of this agreement were drawn up by
Melanchthon. As a matter of fact " we find little trace of
Luther's spirit in the Articles. We have simply to compare
[Luther's] Schmalkalden Articles of the following year to
be convinced how greatly Luther's own mode of thought
and expression differed from those Articles." " They show
us what concessions the Wittenberg theologians, as a body,
were disposed to make in order to win over such a country
as England."2

Concerning Luther's attitude towards the alterations
made by Melanchthon in the Confession of Augsburg (above,
vol. in., p. 445 f.) we must also assume " from his whole
behaviour, that he was not at all pleased with Melanch-
thon's action ; yet he allowed it, like much else, to pass."3
This, however, does not exclude Luther's violence and

1 Kolde in the Preface to the " Symbol. Biicher," 10, p. xxvi., No. 3.
The Articles of Agreement were published in full by G. Mentz in 1905,
" Die Wittenberger Artikel von 1536 " (" Quellenschriften zur Gesch.
des Prot.," Hft. 2). Letter to the Elector, " Werke," Erl. ed., 55,
p. 128 ; " Briefe," 4, p. 683 (" Brief wechsel," 10, p. 315, where Enders,
as late as 1903, had to admit : " The doctrinal articles herewith trans
mitted are not known "). On the negotiations with the English, see
vol. iv., p. 10 f.

2 Thus Mentz, the editor, p. 11. Some theses from these Articles of
Agreement proposed by the Wittenbergers but not accepted by the
English deserve to be quoted from the new sources ; their divergence
from Luther's ordinary teaching is self-evident. Of good works :
" Bona opera non sunt precium pro vita ceterna, tamen sunt necessaria ad
salutem, quia sunt debitum, quod necessario reconciliationem sequi debet."
In support of this Mt. xix. 17 is quoted : " Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva
mandata." Again : " Docemus requiri opera a Deo mandata et quidem
non tantum externa civilia opera, sed etiam spirituales motus, timorem
Dei, fiduciam," etc. (p. 34). — " Hcec obedientia in reconciliatis fide iam
reputatur esse iustitia et qucedam legis impletio " (p. 40). — " Docendce sunt
ecclesice de necessitate et de dignitate huius obedientice, videlicet quod . . .
hcec obedientia seu iusticia bonce conscientice sit necessaria quia debitum
est, quod necessario sequi reconciliationem debet " (p. 42). — Merit, at
least in a certain restricted sense, is also admitted : " Ad hcec bona
opera sunt meritoria iuxta illud (1 Cor. iii. 8) : Unusquisque accipiet
mercedem iuxta proprium laborem." (Cp. the Apologia of the Con
fession of Augsburg, " Symb. Biicher," pp. 120, 148.) " Etsi enim
conscientia non potest statuere, quod propter dignitatem operum detur vita
ceterna, sed nascimur filii Dei et hceredes per misericordiam (which is also
the Catholic teaching) tamen hcec opera in filiis merentur prcemia
corporalia et spiritualia et gradus prcemiorum," etc. (p. 46). The
ambiguity concerning Christ's Presence in the Eucharist (p. 62) is due
to Melanchthon, not to Luther. 3 Kolde, ib.

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 261

narrowness having caused an estrangement between them,
Melanchthon having daily to apprehend outbursts of anger,
so that his stay became extremely painful. The most
critical time was in the summer of 1544, in consequence of
the Cologne Book of Reform (vol. in., p. 447). Luther, who
strongly suspected Melanchthon's orthodoxy on the Supper,
prepared to assail anew those who denied the Real Presence.
Yet the storm which Melanchthon dreaded did not touch
him ; Luther's " Kurtz Bekentnis vom heiligen Sacrament,"
which appeared at the end of September, failed to mention
Melanchthon's name. On Oct. 7, Cruciger was able by letter
to inform Dietrich, that the author no longer displayed any
irritation against his old friend.1 Here again considera
tions of expediency had prevailed over dogmatic scruples,
nor is there any doubt that the old feeling of friendship,
familiarity and real esteem asserted its rights, We may
recall the kindly sympathy and care that Luther lavished
on Melanchthon when the latter fell sick at Weimar, owing
to the trouble consequent on his sanction given to the
Hessian bigamy.2

Indeed we must assume that the relations between the
two were often more cordial than would appear from the
letters of one so timid and fainthearted as Melanchthon ;
the very adaptability of the latter's character renders this
probable. In Nov., 1544, Chancellor Briick declared :
" With regard to Philip, as far as I can see, he and Martin
are quite close friends " ; in another letter written about
that time he also says Luther had told him that he was
quite unaware of any differences between himself and
Melanchthon.3

The latter, whenever he was at Wittenberg, also continued
as a rule to put in an appearance at Luther's table, and
there is little doubt that, on such occasions, Luther's frank
and, open conversation often availed to banish any ill-feeling
there may have been. We learn that Magister Philip was

1 " Corp. ref.," 5, p. 497.

2 To Melanchthon, June 18, 1540, " Brief e," ed. De Wette, 5,
p. 293 ; " Briefwechsel," 13, p. 91 ; " Ratzebergers Gesch.," p. 102 ff. ;
" Corp. ref.," 3, pp. 1060 sq., 1077, 1081. To Johann Lang, July 2,
1540, " Briefe," ib., p. 297 ; " Briefwechsel," 13, p. 109 : " mortuum
enim invenimus ; miraculo Dei manifesto vivit." See vol. iii., p. 162.

3 Kostlin-Kawerau, 2, p. 689 ; " Anal. Luth.," ed. Kolde, p. 402 ;
" Corp. ref.," 5, p. 522.

262 LUTHER THE REFORMER

present at the dinner in celebration of Luther's birthday in
1544, together with Cruciger, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Major,
and that they exchanged confidences concerning the present
and future welfare of the new religion.1

When Melanchthon was away from Wittenberg engaged
in settling ecclesiastical matters elsewhere he was careful
to keep Luther fully informed of the course of affairs. He
occasionally expressed his thanks to the latter for the
charity and kindness of his replies ; Luther in his turn
kept him posted in the little intimacies of their respective
families, in the occurrences in the town and University of
Wittenberg, and almost always added a request for prayer
for help in his struggles with " Satan." This intimate
correspondence was carried on until the very month before
Luther's death. Even in his last letters Luther calls the
friend with whom he had worked for so many years " My
Philip " ; Melanchthon, as a rule, heads his communications
in more formal style : " Clarissimo et optima viro D. Martino
Luthero, doctori theologice, instauratori puree evangelicce
doctrince ac patri suo in Christo reverendo et charissimo."2

The great praise which Melanchthon bestows on the
deceased immediately after his death is indeed startling, but
we must beware of regarding it as mere hypocrisy.

The news of Luther's death which took place at Eisleben on
Feb. 14, 1546, was received by Melanchthon the very next day.
In spite of all their differences it must have come as a shock to
him, the more so that the responsibility for the direction of his
friend's work was now to devolve on him.

The panegyric on Luther which Melanchthon delivered at
Wittenberg boldly places him on the same footing with Isaias,
John the Baptist, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Augustine of
Hippo. In it the humanistic element and style is more noticeable
than the common feeling of the friend. He hints discreetly at
the " great vehemence " of the departed, but does not omit to
mention that everyone who was acquainted with him must bear
witness that he had always shown himself kind-hearted towards
his friends, and never obstinate or quarrelsome.3 Though this
is undoubtedly at variance with what he says elsewhere, still such
a thing was expected in those days in panegyrics on great men,
nor would so smooth-tongued an orator have felt any scruple
about it. In his previous announcement of Luther's death to

1 " Corp. ref:," 5, p. 524.

2 Cp., for instance, " Luthers Brief wechsel," 12, pp. 106, 116, 123,
etc. ; 13, pp. 282, 318.

3 Discourse of Feb. 22, 1546, " Corp. ref.," 11, p. 726 sqq.

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 263

the students he had exclaimed : " The chariot of Israel and the
driver thereof have been taken from us, the man who ruled the
Church in these days of the world's senile decay."1

Melanchthon's Last Years

After Luther's death Melanchthon had still to endure fourteen
years of suffering, perhaps of even more bitter character than he
had yet tasted. Whilst representing Lutheranism and taking the
lead amongst his colleagues he did so with the deliberate inten
tion of maintaining the new faith by accommodating himself
indulgently to the varying conditions of the times. Our narrative
may here be permitted to anticipate somewhat in order to give
a clear and connected account of Melanchthon's inner life and
ultimate fate. 2

His half-heartedness and love of compromise were a cause of
many hardships to him, particularly at the time of the so-called
Interims of Augsburg and Leipzig. It was a question of intro
ducing the Augsburg Interim into the Saxon Electorate after the
latter, owing to the War of Schmalkalden, had come under the
rule of the new Elector Maurice. Melanchthon had at first
opposed the provisions of this Interim, by means of which the
Emperor hoped gradually to bring the Protestants back to the
fold. In Dec., 1548, however, he, together with other theologians,
formally accepted the Leipzig articles, which, owing to their
similarity with the Augsburg Interim, were dubbed by his
opponents the "Leipzig Interim,"3 In this the "moot ob
servances (Adiaphora), i.e. those which may be kept without
any contravention of Divine Scripture," were extended by
Melanchthon so as to include the reintroduction of fasting,
festivals, not excluding even Corpus Christi, images of the Saints
in the churches, the Latin liturgy, the Canonical Hours in Latin
and even a sort of hierarchy. Melanchthon also agreed to the
demand for the recognition of the seven sacraments. By strongly
emphasising his own doctrine of synergism, he brought the Wit
tenberg teaching on Justification much nearer to Catholic dogma ;
he even dealt a death-blow to the genuine (Doctrine of Luther by
appending his signature to the following proposition : " God
does not deal with man as with a block of wood, but so draws him
that his will also co-operates." In addition to this the true char
acter of Luther's sola fides, or assurance of salvation, was veiled
by Melanchthon under the formula : " True faith accepts,
together with other articles, that of the ' Forgiveness of Sins.' '

Hence when Flacius Illyricus, Amsdorf, Gallus, Wigand,
Westphal and others loudly protested against Melanchthon as
though he had denied Luther's doctrine, they were not so very far
wrong. The result of their vigorous opposition and of the number
of those who sided with them was that Melanchthon gradually

1 " Corp. ref.," 6, p. 59.

2 For further details, see below, vol. vi., xl., 3.

3 On what follows, see Loofs, " DG.," 4, p. 867 f.

264 LUTHER THE REFORMER

ceased to be the he*ad of the Lutheran Church, becoming merely
the leader of a certain party.

Later on, in 1552, when the position of public affairs in
Germany was more favourable to Protestantism, Melanchthon
admitted that he had been wrong in his views concerning the
Adiaphora, since, after all, they were not so unimportant as he
had at first thought. In order to pacify his opponents he in
cluded the following proposition in his form of examination for
new preachers : " We ought to profess, not the Papal errors,
Interim, etc. . . . but to remain faithful to the pure Divine
teaching of the Gospel."1

Opposition to the " Papal errors " was indeed the one thing
to which he steadfastly adhered ; this negative side of his atti
tude never varied, whatever changes may have taken place in his
positive doctrines.

Nevertheless during the ensuing controversies he was regarded
as a traitor by the stricter Lutherans and treated with a scorn
that did much to embitter his last years. The attitude of his
opponents was particularly noticeable at the conference of Worms
in 1557. Even before this, they, particularly the Jena theologians,
had planned an outspoken condemnation of all those who " had
departed from the Augsburg Confession," as Melanchthon had
done. They now appeared at Worms with others of the same
way of thinking. " I desire no fellowship with those who defile
the purity of our doctrine," wrote one of them ; " we must shun
them, according to the words of the Bible : ' If any man come
to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house
nor say to him, God speed you.' "2 The friends of Flacius
Illyricus at the very first meeting made no secret of their unani
mous demand, so that Melanchthon in his justificatory statement
could well say : "I see plainly that all this is directed solely
against me." He opposed any condemnation of Zwingli or of
Calvin on account of their doctrine on the Supper ; this, he said,
was the business of a synod.

At the very outset of the disputations with the Catholics it
became evident anew that the divergency of the Protestants in
the interpretation of Holy Scripture was too great to allow of the
points under discussion being satisfactorily settled in conference ;
the abrogation of an ecclesiastical authority for the exposition
of Scripture had resulted in an ever-growing want of unity in the
interpretation of the Bible. Peter Canisius, the Catholic spokes
man, pointed out emphatically what obstacles were presented by
the contradictory opinions on doctrine amongst the Protestants ;
where every man traced his opinions back to Scripture, how was
it possible to arrive at any decision ?3 It was from Canisius,
" who during the course of the conference distinguished himself
as the leader of the Catholic party and later repeatedly proved

1 Ellinger, " Melanchthon," p. 554.

2 J6., p. 569.

3 Cp. the report of Peter Canisius to Lainez, General of the Jesuits,
Brauusberger, " Epistulae b. Petri Canisii," 2, p. 176 sq.

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 265

himself a sharp observer of the religious conditions in Germany,"1
that the suggestion came, that the Protestants should define
their position more clearly by repudiating certain divergent
sects. This led the followers of Flacius to demand that all the
Evangelicals should unite in condemning Zwinglianism, Osian-
derism, Adiaphorism and Majorism, and also Calvin's doctrine
on the Supper. To this Melanchthon and his friends absolutely
refused to agree. The result was that the followers of Flacius
departed greatly incensed, and the conference had to be broken
off. " The contradictions in the very heart of Protestantism
were thus revealed to the whole world."2

" No greater disgrace befell the Reformation in the 16th
century."3

From that time Melanchthon was a broken man. His friend
Languet wrote to Calvin, " Mr. Philip is so worn out with old
age, toils, calumnies and intrigues that nothing is left of his
former cheerfulness."4

Melanchthon characterised the Book of Confutation published
by the Duke of Saxony in 1558, and finally revised by Flacius, as
a " congeries of sophisms " which he had perused with great pain,
and as " venomous sophistry." He therefore once more begged
for his dismissal.5

His longing for death as a happy release from such bitter
affliction we find expressed in many of his letters. To Sigismund
Gelous of Eperies in Hungary he wrote, on May 20, 1559, that he
was not averse to departing this life owing to the attacks on his
person, and in order that he might behold " the light of the
Heavenly Academy " and become partaker of its wisdom.6 He
looked forward, so he writes to another, to that light " where
God is all in all and where there is no more sophistry or calumny."7
Only a few days before his death he solaced himself by drawing
up some notes entitled : " Reasons why you should fear death
less." On the left of the sheet he wrote : " You will escape from
sin, and will be delivered from all trouble and the fury of the
theologians ('liberaberis ab cerumnis et a rabie theologorutn ' } " ;
and, on the right : " You will attain to the light, you will behold
God, you will look on the Son of God, you will see into those

1 Ellinger, ib., p. 570. 2 Ib., p. 571.

3 Thus the Protestant theologian Nitzsch, see " RE. f. prot. Th.," 3,
Art. " Melanchthon," p. 525. Loofs, 4, p. 904. " The religious confer
ence suffered shipwreck from want of unity amongst the Evangelicals."
The Gnesio-Lutherans demanded (Sep. 27) that all errors on " the
Supper " should be condemned, " whether emanating from Carlstadt,
Zwingli, CEcolampadius, Calvin or others." Calvin's doctrine was,
however, substantially identical with Melanchthon's at tl.at time.

4 "RE.," ib.

5 To Camerarius, Feb. 16, 1559, " Corp. ref.," 9, p. 744.

6 Ib., p. 822. As a Humanist he was fond of conjuring up heaven
under the image of the Academy. In his address to the students on
Luther's death he says, the former had been snatched away " in
ceternam scholam et in ceterna gaudia."

7 To Buchholzer, Aug. 10, 1559, ib., p. 898.

266 LUTHER THE REFORMER

wonderful mysteries which you have been unable to comprehend
in this life, such as why we are created as we are, and how the
two natures are united in Christ."1 He finally departed this life
on April 19, 1560, from the results of a severe cold.

Review of Melanchthon's Religious Position as a whole

Melanchthon's last work was a " strong protest against
Catholicism," which at the same time embodied an abstract
of his whole doctrine — such as it had become during the
later years of his life. This work he calls his " Confession " ;
it is professedly aimed at the " godless Articles of the
Bavarian Inquisition," i.e. was intended to counteract the
efforts of Duke Albert of Bavaria to preserve his country
from the inroads of Protestantism.2

In this " Confession," dating from the evening of his days, the
" so-peaceful " Melanchthon bluntly describes the Pope and all
his train (satellites) as " defenders of idols " ; according to him
they " withstand the known truth, and cruelly rage against the
pious."3 This book, with its superficial humanistic theology,
justifies, like so many of his earlier works, the opinion of learned
Catholic contemporaries who regretted that the word of a scholar
devoid of any sound theological training should exercise so much
influence over the most far-reaching religious questions of the
day.

Writing to Cardinal Sadoleto, Johann Fabri, Bishop of Vienna,
says, " Would that Melanchthon had pursued his studies on the
lines indicated by his teacher Capnion [Reuchlin] ! Would that
he had but remained content with the rhetoric and grammar of
the ancients instead of allowing his youthful ardour to carry him
away, to turn the true religion into a tragedy ! But alas . . .
when barely eighteen years of age he began to teach the simple,
and, by his soft speeches, he has disturbed the whole Church
beyond measure. And even after so many years he is still unable
to see his error or to desist from the doctrines once imbibed and
from furthering such lamentable disorders."4 To this letter
Fabri appended excerpts from various writings of Melanchthon's
as " specimens of what his godless pen had produced against the
truth and the peace of the Church."

Others, for instance Eck and Cochlseus, in their descriptions of
Melanchthon dwell on the traits that displeased them in their
personal intercourse with him.

1 Ib., p. 1098.

2 Thus in his " Testament " of April 18, 1560, ib., p. 1099.

3 Reprinted in " Opera Ph. Melanchtonis," t. 1, Vitebergae, 1562,
p. 364 sqq.

4 Jan. 28, 1538, " Zeitschr. f. KG.," 20, p. 247 ff. G. Kawerau,
" Die Versuche Melanchthon zur kathol. Kirche zuriickzufiihren,"
1902 (" Schriften des Vereins f. RG.," No. 73), p. 43.

HIS FRIEND MELANCHTHON 267

Johann Eck compares the way in which Melanchthon twice
outwitted Cardinal Campeggio to the false arts of Sinon the
Greek, known to us from Virgil's account of the introduction of
the wooden horse into Troy.1 Johann Cochlseus, who had met
him at Augsburg, calls him the " fox," and once warns a friend :
" Take care lest he cheat you with his deceitful cunning, for, like
the Sirens, he gains a hearing by sweet and honeyed words ; he
makes a hypocritical use of lying ; he is ever planning how he
may win men's hearts by all manner of wiles, and seduces them
with dishonest words."2 About the same time in a printed reply
to Melanchthon's " Apologia," he drew an alarming picture of
the latter's trickery at the Diet of Augsburg. By worming him
self into the confidence of the Princes and great men present,
Melanchthon learned, so he says, things that were little to the
credit of the Catholic Church ; these he afterwards retailed to
Luther, who at once, after duly embellishing them, flung the tales
broadcast amongst the people by means of the press. Melanch
thon made not the slightest attempt to correct his statements, as
he was in duty bound to do, and his honeyed words merely fed the
flames.3 "Most people," he writes elsewhere, "if not all, have
hitherto supposed Melanchthon to be much milder and more
moderate than Luther " ; such persons should, however, study
his writings carefully, and then they would soon see how unspeak
ably bitter was his feeling against Catholics. 4

The latter assertion is only too fully confirmed by the extracts
already put before the reader, particularly by those from his
Schmalkalden tract on the Pope, from his Introduction to the
new edition of Luther's " Warnunge " and from the " Confession "
just alluded to.6 Here there glows such deep hatred of the faith
and practices of the Catholic Church that one seeks in vain for
the common ground on which his professed love for union could
thrive.

His conciliatory proposals were, however, in fact nothing more
than the vague and barren cravings of a Humanist.

In connection with this a characteristic, already pointed
out, which runs through the whole of Melanchthon's
religious attitude and strongly differentiates him from
Luther, merits being emphasised anew. This is the shallow,
numbing spirit which penetrates alike his theology and his
philosophy, and the humanistic tendency to reduce every
thing to uniformity. ' That, in his theological vocabulary he

1 To Vergerio, June 1, 1534, " Zeitschr. f. KG.," 19, p. 222. Kawerau,
ib., p. 79.

2 To Bishop Cricius, June 2, 1534, in his " Velitatio in Apologiam
Ph. Melanchthonis," 1534, Bl. A. 6 ff. Kawerau, ib., p. 23 f.

3 " Velitatio," Bl. A. 4. Kawerau, p. 25.

4 " Zeitschr. f. KG.," 18, p. 424. Kawerau, p. 64 f.

5 Vol. ii., p. 438 ff., and above, p. 260. Cp. vol. iii., p. 447 (Cologne
Book of Reform).

268 LUTHER THE REFORMER

is fond of using classical terms (speaking, for instance, of the
heavenly " Academy " where we attend the " school " of
the Apostles and Prophets)1 is a detail ; he goes much
further and makes suspiciously free with the whole contents
of the faith, whether for the sake of reducing it to system,
or for convenience, or in order to promote peace.2 It would
have fared ill with Melanchthon had he applied to himself
in earnest what Luther said of those who want to be wiser
than God, who follow their crazy reason and seek to bring
about an understanding between Christ and . . . the devil.
But Melanchthon's character was pliant enough not to be
unduly hurt by such words of Luther's. He was able, on the
one hand, to regard Bucer and the Swiss as his close allies
on the question of the Supper and, on the other, while all
the time sticking fast to Luther, he could declare that
on the whole he entirely agreed with the religious views of
Erasmus, the very " antipodes of Luther." It was only
his lack of any real religious depth which enabled him so to
act. In a sketch of Erasmus which he composed for one of
his pupils in 1557, he even makes the former, in spite of all
his hostility to Luther, to share much the same way of
thinking, a fact which draws from Kawerau the complaint :
" So easy was it for Melanchthon to close his eyes to the
doctrinal differences which existed even amongst the
4 docti.' "3

A similar lack of any just and clear appreciation of the
great truths of the faith is also apparent in Melanchthon's
letters to Erasmus, more particularly in the later ones.
Here personal friendship and Humanist fellow-feeling vie
with each other in explaining away in the most startling
manner the religious differences.4 Many elements of
theology were dissolved by Melanchthon's subjective
method of exegesis and by the system of philosophy he had
built up from the classical authors, particularly from Cicero.
Melanchthon's philosophy was quite unfitted to throw light

1 Cp. above, p. 265, n. 6.

2 The authors of the Article on Melanchthon in the " RE. f. prot.
Th.," 3, say, p. 535 : "A Humanist mode of thought forms the back
ground of his theology " ; Melanchthon strove for a kind of com
promise between Christian truth and ancient philosophy.

3 " Versuche," p. 83, with the above example taken from " Corp.
ref.," 12, p. 269.

4 Cp., for instance, the letter of May 12, 1536, to Erasmus, " Corp.
ref.," 3, p. 68 sq. Kawerau, ib., p. 32.

MELANCHTHON LEGENDS 269

on the doctrines of revelation. To him the two domains,
of philosophy and theology, seemed, not only independent,
but actually hostile to each other, a state of things absolutely
unknown to the Middle Ages. If, as Melanchthon avers,
reason is unable to prove the existence of God on philo
sophical grounds, then, by this very fact, the science of the
supernatural loses every stay, nor is it possible any longer to
defend revelation against unbelief.

It is the merest makeshift, when, like other of his Humanist
contemporaries, Melanchthon seeks to base our knowledge
of God's existence on feeling and on a vague inward experi
ence.1

Thus we can quite understand how old-fashioned Protes
tantism, after having paid but little attention to Melanchthon
either in the days of orthodox Lutheranism or of Pietism,
began to have recourse to him with the advent of Rational
ism. The orthodox had missed in him Luther's sparkling
" strength of faith " and the courageous resolve to twit the
" devil " within and without ; the Pietists failed to discern
in him the mysticism they extolled in Luther. Rationalists,
on the other hand, found in him many kindred elements.
Even of quite recent years Melanchthon has been hailed as
the type of the easy-going theologian who seeks to bridge
the chasm between believing and infidel Protestantism ; at
any rate, Melanchthon's positive belief was far more ex
tensive than that of many of his would-be imitators.

Melanchthon Legends

The tale once current that, at the last, Melanchthon
was a Lutheran only in name, is to-day rejected by all
scholars, Protestant and Catholic.

Concerning the " honesty of his Protestantism " "no
doubts " are raised by Protestant theologians, who call
his teaching a " modification and a toning down " of that
of Luther ; nor can we conclude that " he was at all shaky
in his convictions," even should the remarkable utterance
about to be cited really emanate from him.2 A Catholic
historian of the highest standing agrees in saying of him :
" Even though Luther's teaching may not have completely

1 Cp. the Article quoted, p. 268, n. 2.

2 Ib., and pp. 532, 537 of the " Realenzyklopadie."

270 LUTHER THE REFORMER

satisfied Melanchthon, yet there is no reason to doubt, that,
on the whole, he was heart and soul on the side of the
innovations. . . . We may now and then come upon
actions on his part which arouse a suspicion as to his
straightforwardness, but on the whole his convictions
cannot be questioned."1

In Catholic literature, nevertheless, even down to the present
day, we often find Melanchthon quoted as having said to his
mother, speaking of the relative value of the old and the new
religion : " Hcec plausibilior, ilia securior ; Lutheranism is the
more popular, but Catholicism is the safer."2

This story concerning Melanchthon assumed various forms as
time went on. We must dismiss the version circulated by Flori-
mond de Raemond in 1605, to the effect that the words had been
spoken by Melanchthon on his death-bed to his mother who had
remained a Catholic, when the latter adjured him to tell her the
truth ;3 his mother, as a matter of fact, died at her home at Bretten
in the Lower Palatinate long before her son, in 1529, slightly
before July 24, being then in her fifty-third year.4

Nor is there much to be said in favour of another version of
the above story which has it that Melanchthon's mother, after
having been persuaded by him to come over, visited him in great
distress of mind, and received from him the above reply.

Melanchthon called on her at Bretten in May, 1524, during
his stay in his native place, and may have done so again in 1529
in the spring, when attending the Diet of Spires. A passage in
his correspondence construed as referring to this visit is by no
means clear,5 though the illness and death of his mother would
seem to make such a flying visit likely. On a third occasion
Melanchthon went to Bretten in the autumn of 1536.

We shall first see what Protestant writers have to say of the
supposed conversation with the mother.

K. Ed. Forstemann, who, in 1830, 6 dealt with the family records
of the Schwarzerd family, says briefly of the matter : " Strobel
was wrong in declaring this story to be utterly devoid of historical

1 F. X. Funk in the " KL.," 2, Art. " Melanchthon," p. 1212 f.

2 For a supposed remark of Luther's to Catherine Bora which
would seem even more clearly to admit the uncertainty of the new
faith, see below, p. 372 f.

3 " L'Histoire de la naissance, progrez et decadence de Fheresie de
ce siecle," 1. 2, ch. 9 (Rouen, 1648), p. 166 : " On escrit, qu'estant sur
le poinct de rendre Fame, Fan 1560, sa mere," etc. The author is quite
uncritical (see below, p. 271).

4 " Corp. ref.," 1, p. 1083, Melanchthon to Camerarius. C. G.
Strobel, " Melanchthoniana," 1771, p. 9.

5 Cp. N. Miiller, " Jakob Schwarzerd," 1908 (" Schriften des Vereins
f. RG.," Nos. 96-97), p. 42, on " Corp. ref.," 2, p. 563. Miiller assumes
(p. 41) that the visit took place in 1524.

6 " Theol. Stud, und Krit.," 1, 1830, p. 119 ff., " Die Schwarzerd."

MELANCHTHON LEGENDS 271

foundation."1 C. G. Strobel, in his " M elanchthoniana " (1771),
had expressed his disbelief in the tale under the then widespread
form, according to which Melanchthon had spoken the words,
when visiting his dying mother in 1529 ; he had been much
shocked to hear it told in rhetorical style by M. A. J. Bose of
Wittenberg in a panegyric on Melanchthon. Bose, whose lean
ings were towards the Broad School, had cited the story approv
ingly as an instance of Melanchthon's large-mindedness in re
ligion.2 Against the account Strobel alleges several a priori
objections of no great value ; his best argument really was that
there was no authority for it.

Forstemann's brief allusion was not without effect on the
authors of the article on Melanchthon in the " Realenzyklopadie
fiir protestantische Theologie " ; there we read : " The tale is
at least not unlikely, though it cannot be proved with certainty " ;3
even G. Ellinger, the latest of Melanchthon's biographers,
declares : " We may assume that Melanchthon treated the
religious views of his mother, who continued till the end of her
life faithful to the olden Church, with the same tender solicitude
as he displayed towards her in the later conversation in 1529. "4

It is first of all necessary to settle whether the conversation
actually rests on reliable authority. Forstemann, like Strobel,
mentions only Melchior Adam (f 1622), whose " Vitce theologorum "
was first published in 1615 (see next page).

Adam, a Protestant writer, gives no authority for his state
ment. JEgidius Albertinus, a popular Catholic author, writing
slightly earlier, also gives the story in his " Rekreation " (see
next page), published in 1612 and 1613, likewise without indi
cating its source.

Earlier than either we have Florimond de Raemond, whose
" Histoire," etc. (above, p. 270, n. 3) contains the story even in
the 1605 edition ; he too gives no authority. So far no earlier
mention of the story is known. It seems to have been a current
tale in Catholic circles abroad and may have been printed.
Strange to say the work of the zealous Catholic convert and
polemic, de Raemond (completed and seen through the press by
his son), contains the story under the least likely shape, the
dying Melanchthon being made to address the words to his mother,
who really had died long before.

It is quite likely that ^Egidius Albertinus, the well-read priestly
secretary to the Munich Council, who busied himself much with

1 P. 122.

2 In the collection of essays published by the Wittenberg
" Academy," " Memoria Ph. Melanchthonis, finite post eius exitum
sseculo II."

3 3rd ed., Art. " Melanchthon," p. 531.

4 G. Ellinger, " Melanchthon," 1902, p. 191. F. X. Funk remarks
in the " KL.," 2, Art. "Melanchthon," p. 1212: Melanchthon, "after
having made her [his mother] repeat her prayers, is said to have
assured her, that if she continued thus to believe and to pray, she might
well live in hopes of being saved."

272 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Italian, Spanish and Latin literature, was acquainted with this
passage. He nevertheless altered the narrative, relating how
Melanchthon's " aged mother came to him " after he had " lived
long in the world and seen many things, and caused many
scandals by his life." He translates as follows the Latin words
supposed to have been uttered by Melanchthon : "The new
religion is much pleasanter, but the old one is much safer."1

Next comes the Protestant Adam. The latter gives a plausible
historical setting to the story by locating it during the time of
Melanchthon's stay at Spires, though without mentioning that
the mother was then at death's door. " When asked by her,"
so runs his account, which is the commonest one, " what she was
to believe of the controversies, he listened to the prayers [she
was in the habit of reciting] and, finding nothing superstitious
in them, told her to continue to believe and to pray as heretofore
and not be disturbed by the discussions and controversies."2
Here we do not meet the sentence Hcec plausibilior, ilia securior.
The fact that Adam, who as a rule is careful to give his authorities,
omits to do so here, points to the story having been verbally
transmitted ; for it is hardly likely that he, as a Protestant,
would have taken over the statements of the two Catholic
authorities Albertinus and Raemond, which were so favourable
to Catholicism and so unfavourable to Protestantism. Probably,
besides the Catholic version there was also a Protestant one,
which would explain here the absence of the sentence ending
with " securior." Both may have risen at the time of the
Diet of Spires, where Catholics and Protestants alike attended,
supposing that the visit to Bretten took place at that time.

All things considered we may well accept the statement of the
" Realenzyklopadie," that the story, as given by Adam, apart
from the time it occurred, is "not unlikely, though it cannot be
proved with certainty." Taking into account the circumstances
and the character of Melanchthon, neither the incident nor his
words involve any improbability. He will have seen that his
beloved mother — whether then at the point of death or not —
was in perfect good faith ; he had no wish to plunge her into
inward struggles and disquiet and preferred to leave her happy
in her convictions ; the more so since, in her presence and amid
the recollections of the past, his mind will probably have travelled
to the days of his youth, when he was still a faithful son of the
Church. He had never forgotten the exhortation given by his
father, nine days before his death, to his family "never to quit
the Church's fold."8 The exact date of the incident (1524 or
1529) must however remain doubtful. N. Miiller in his work on
Melanchthon's brother, Jakob Schwarzerd, says rightly : " No-

1 " DesTeutschen . . . Rekreation," Munich, 1612, 4, p. 143. The
author, who died in 1620, is no authority on historical matters beyond
his own times and surroundings.

2 " Vitas theologorum," p. 333.

3 "RE. f. prot. Th.," 3, Art. "Melanchthon," p. 531, with reference
to Melanchthon's " Postille," 2, p. 477.

MELANCHTHON LEGENDS 273

thing obliges us to place the conversation between Melanchthon
and his mother — assuming it to be historical — in 1529, for it may
equally well have taken place in 1524."1

r

Two unsupported stories connected with Melanchthon's
Augsburg Confession must also be mentioned here. The
twofold statement, frequently repeated down to the present
day, takes the following shape in a recent historical work
by a Protestant theologian : " When the Confession was
read out, the Bishop of Augsburg, Christoph von Stadion,
declared, ' What has just been read here is the pure, unvar
nished truth ' ; Eck too had to admit to the Duke of Bavaria,
that he might indeed be able to refute this work from the
Fathers of the Church, but certainly not from Scripture."
So convincing and triumphant was Melanchthon's attitude
at the Diet of Augsburg.

The information concerning Stadion is found only in the
late, Protestant history of the Diet of Augsburg written by
George Coelestinus and published in 1577 at Frankfurt; here'
moreover the story differs slightly, relating, that, during the
negotiations on the Confession on Aug. 6, Stadion declared :
" It was plain that those who inclined to the Lutheran views
had, so far, not infringed or overthrown a single article of the
faith by what they had put forward in defence of their views."2
Any decisive advocacy of the Catholic cause was of course not
to be expected from this bishop, in view of his general bearing.
A good pupil of Erasmus, he had made the latter's reforming
ideas his own. He was in favour of priestly marriage, and was
inclined to think that Christ had not instituted auricular con
fession. There is, however, no proof that he went so far in the
direction of the innovations as actually to approve the Lutheran
teaching. It is true that the words quoted, even if really his,
do not assert this ; it was one thing to say that no article of the
faith had been infringed by the Confession or by what had been
urged in vindication of Lutheranism, and quite another to say
that the Confession was nothing but the pure, unvarnished truth.
At any rate, in the one form this statement of Stadion's is not
vouched for by any other authority before Ccelestinus and, in
the other, lacks any proof whatever. F. W. Schirrmacher, who
relates the incident in his " Brief en und Akten zur Ges-
chichte des Reichstags zu Augsburg " on the authority of Coeles
tinus, admits that "its source is unknown."3 Moreover an
historian, who some years ago examined into Stadion's attitude
at Augsburg, pointed out, that, in view of the further circum-

1 Above, p. 270, n. 5, p. 41.

2 " Historia comitiorum a. 1530 Augustse celebratorum," 3, p. 20,
8 Gotha, 1876, p. 191,

V,— -T

274 LUTHER THE REFORMER

stances related by Coelestinus, the story " sounds a little fabu
lous."1 He tells us how on the same occasion the bishops of
Salzburg and Augsburg fell foul of one another, the former, in
his anger at Stadion's behaviour, even going so far as to charge
the latter before the whole assembly with immorality in his
private life. All this, told at great length and without mention
of any authority, far from impressing us as historically accurate,
appears at best as an exaggerated hearsay account of some
incident of which the truth is no longer known.

As for what Johann Eck is stated to have said, viz. that he
could refute Melanchthon's Confession from the Fathers but not
from the Bible, no proof whatever of the statement is forthcoming.
The oldest mention of it merely retails a piece of vague gossip,
which may well have gone the rounds in Lutheran circles. It is
met with in Spalatin's Notes and runs : " It is said " that Eck,
referring to the whole doctrine of Melanchthon and Luther, told
Duke William : "I would not mind undertaking to refute it
from the Fathers, but not from Scripture."2 It is true these
notes go back as far as the Diet of Augsburg, but they notoriously
contain much that is false or uncertain, and often record mere
unauthenticated rumours. Neither Melanchthon nor Luther
ever dared to appeal to such an admission on the part of their
opponent, though it would certainly have been of the utmost
advantage to them to have done so.

Not only is no proof alleged in support of the saying, but it
is in utter contradiction with Eck's whole mode of procedure,
which was always to attack the statements of his opponents,
first with Scripture and then with the tradition of the Fathers.
This is the case with the " Confutatio confessionis," etc., aimed at
Melanchthon's Confession, in the preparation of which Eck had
the largest share and which he presented at the Diet of Augsburg.

According to his own striking account of what happened at
the religious conference of Ratisbon in 1541, it was to his habitual
and triumphant use of biblical arguments against Melanchthon's
theses that Eck appealed in the words he addressed to Bucer
his chief opponent : " Hearken, you apostate, does not Eck use
the language of the Bible and the Fathers ? Why don't you reply
to his writings on the primacy of Peter, on penance, on the Sacri
fice of the Mass, and on Purgatory ? " etc.3

What also weighs strongly against the tale is the fact that a
charge of a quite similar nature had been brought against Eck
ten years before the Diet of Augsburg by an opponent, who
assailed him with false and malicious accusations. What
Protestant fable came wantonly to connect with Melanchthon's
" Confession " had already, in 1520, been charged against the
Ingolstadt theologian by the author of " Eccius dedolatus."

1 J. B. Hablitzel, " Liter. Beil. zur Augsburger Postztng.," 1905,
No. 40 f .

2 Printed in the Jena edition of Luther's German works, 6,
1557, p. 41.

3 " Apologia," Ingolstadii, 1542, p. clii.

DEVIL LORE 275

There he is told, that, in his view, one had perforce (on account
of the Bible) to agree with Luther secretly, though, publicly, he
had to be opposed.1

Theodore Wiedemann, who wrote a Life of Eck and who at
least hints at the objection just made, was justified in concluding
with the query : " Is it not high time to say good-bye to this
historic lie ? "2 When, as late as 1906, the story was once
more burnished up by a writer of note, N. Paulus, writing in the
" Historisches Jahrbuch," could well say: "Eck's alleged utter
ance was long ago proved to be quite unhistorical."3

4. Demonology and Demonomania

" Come O Lord Jesus, Amen ! The breath of Thy mouth
dismays the diabolieal gainsayer." " Satan's hate is all too
Satanic."4

Oh, that the devil's gaping jaws were crushed by the
blessed seed of the woman !5 How little is left for God.6
" The remainder is swallowed by Satan who is the Prince of
this world, surely an inscrutable decree of Eternal Wisdom." 7
" Prodigies everywhere daily manifest the power of the
devil ! " 8

Against such a devil's world, as Luther descried, what can
help save the approaching " end of all " ?

" The kingdom of God is being laid waste by Turk and
Jew and Pope," the chosen tools of Satan; but "greater
is He Who reigns in us than he who rules the world ;
the devil shall be under Christ to all eternity,"9 "The
present rage of the devil only reveals God's future wrath
against mankind, who are so ungrateful for the Evangel."10
" We cannot but live in this devil's kingdom which sur
rounds us " ; 11 " but even with our last breath we must

1 Willibald Pirkheimer, who was then on Luther's side, is usually
regarded as the author of this screed published under the pseudonym
of J. F. Cottalambergius. Like some others, K. Bauer (" Schriften des
Vereins f. RG.," No. 100, 1910, p. 272) rejects his authorship. The
passage in question appears in Booking's edition, " Hutteni opp.," 4,
1860, p. 533.

2 " Johannes Eck," 1865, p. 275 f. 3 1906, p. 885.

4 To Melanchthon, Dec. 7, 1540, " Brief wechsel," 13, p. 227.

5 To Melanchthon, Nov. 21, 1540, ib., p. 215.

6 To Link, Sep. 8, 1541, " Briefe," 5, p. 399.

7 To Jonas, Jan. 23, 1542, ib., p. 429.

8 To Lauterbach, April 2, 1543, ib., pp. 551, 552.

9 To the Evangelical Brethren at Venice, June 13, 1543, ib., p. 569.

10 To Lauterbach, July 25, 1542, ib., p. 487 f.

11 To Cordatus, Dec. 3, 1544, ib., p. 702.

276 LUTHER THE REFORMER

fight against the monsters of Satan."1 Let the Papists,
whose glory is mere " devil's filth," rejoice in their suc
cesses.2 As little heed is to be paid to them as to the
preachers of the Evangel who have gone astray in doc
trine, like Agricola and Schwenckfeld ; they calmly " go their
way to Satan to whom indeed they belong " ;3 " they are
senseless fools, possessed of the devil." The devil " spues
and ructates " his writings through them ; this is the devil
of heresy against whom solemnly launch the malediction :
" God's curse be upon thee, Satan ! The spirit that sum
moned thee be with thee unto destruction ! "4

Luther's letters during his later years are crammed with
things of this sort.

The thought of the devil and his far-spread sphere of
action, to which Luther had long been addicted, assumes
in his mind as time goes on a more serious and gloomy
shape, though he continues often enough to refer to the
Divine protection promised against the powers of darkness
and to the final victory of Christ.

In his wrong idea of the devil Luther was by no means
without precursors. On the contrary, in the Middle Ages
exaggerations had long prevailed on this subject, not only
among the people but even among the best-known writers ;
on the very eve of Luther's coming forward they formed no
small part of the disorders in the ecclesiastical life of the
people. Had people been content with the sober teaching
of Holy Scripture and of the Church on the action of the
devil, the faithful would have been preserved from many
errors. As it was, however, the vivid imagination of laity
and clergy led them to read much into the revealed doctrine
that was not really in it ; witness, for instance, the startling
details they found in the words of St. Paul (Eph. vi. 12) :
" For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood : but
against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the
world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in
the high places." Great abuses had gradually crept into

1 To Probst, Jan. 17 (the year of his death), 1546, ib., p. 778.

2 To Jonas, Sep. 30, 1543, ib., p. 591 : " quorum glorias pro stercore
diaboli habeo."

3 To Justus Menius, Jan. 10, 1542, " Briefe," 5, p. 426, on " Master
Grickel," i.e. Agricola.

4 To Caspar Schwenckfeld's messenger (1543), " Briefe," 5, p. 614 :
" Increpet Dominus in te, Satan," etc.

DEVIL LORE 277

the use of the blessings and exorcisms of the Church, more
particularly in the case of supposed sorcery. Unfortunately,
too, the beliefs and practices common among the people
received much too ready support from persons of high stand
ing in the Church. The supposition, which in itself had the
sanction of tradition, that intercourse with the devil was
possible, grew into the fantastic persuasion that witches
were lurking everywhere, and required to have their mali
cious action checked by the authority of Church and State.
That unfortunate book, "The Witches' Hammer," which
Institoris and Sprenger published in 1487, made these de
lusions fashionable in circles which so far had been but little
affected by them, though the authors' purpose, viz. to
stamp out the witches, was not achieved.

It is clear that at home in Saxony, and in his own family,
Luther had lived in an atmosphere where the belief in spirits
and the harm wrought by the devil was very strong ; miners
are credited with being partial to such gloomy fancies owing
to the nature of their dangerous work in the mysterious
bowels of the earth. As a young monk he had fancied he
heard the devil creating an uproar nightly in the convent,
and the state of excitement in which he lived and which
accompanied him ever afterwards was but little calculated
to free him from the prejudices of the age concerning the
devil's power. His earlier sermons, for instance those to be
mentioned below on the Ten Commandments, contain much
that is frankly superstitious, though this must be set down
in great part to the beliefs already in vogue and above
which he failed to rise. Had Luther really wished to play
the part of a reformer of the ecclesiastical life of his day, he
would have found here a wide field for useful labour. In
point of fact, however, he only made bad worse. His lively
descriptions and the weight of his authority merely served
to strengthen the current delusions among those who looked
to him. Before him no one had ever presented these things
to the people with such attractive wealth of detail, no one
had brought the weight of his personality so strongly to
bear upon his readers and so urgently preached to them on
how to deal with the spirits of evil.

Among non-Catholics it has been too usual to lay the
whole blame on the Middle Ages and the later Catholic
period. They do not realise how greatly Luther's influence

278 LUTHER THE REFORMER

counted in the demonology and demonomania of the ensuing
years. Yet Luther's views and practice show plainly enough,
that it was not merely the Catholic ages before his day that
were dishonoured with such delusions concerning the devil,
and that it was not the Catholics alone, of his time and the
following decades, who were responsible for the devil-craze
and the bloody persecutions of the witches in those dark
days of German history in the 17th century.1

The Mischief Wrought by the Devil

Luther's views agree in so far with the actual teaching of
the olden Church, that he regards the devils as fallen angels
condemned to eternal reprobation, who oppose the aims of
God for the salvation of the world and the spiritual and
temporal welfare of mankind. " The devil undoes the
works of God," so he says, adding, however, in striking con
sonance with the teaching of the Church and to emphasise
the devil's powerlessness, " but Christ undoes the devil's
works ; He, the seed [of the woman] and the serpent are
ever at daggers drawn."2 But Luther goes further, and
depicts in glaring and extravagant colours the harm which
the devil can bring about. He declares he himself had had
a taste of how wrathful and mighty a foe the devil is ; this
he had learned in the inward warfare he was compelled to
wage against Satan. He was convinced that, at the Wart-
burg, and also later, he had repeatedly to witness the sinister
manifestations of the Evil One's malignant power.

Hence in his Church-postils, home-postils and Catechism,
to mention only these, he gives full vent to his opinions on
the hostility and might of Satan.

In the Larger Catechism of 1529, 3 "when enumerating the
evils caused by the devil, he tells of how he "breaks many a
man's neck, drives others out of their mind or drowns them in
the water " ;4 how he " stirs up strife and brings murder, sedition
and war, item causes hail and tempests, destroying the corn and the
cattle, and poisoning the air," etc. ;6 among those who break the

1 Cp. for what follows N. Paulus, " Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess
vornehmlich im 16. Jahrh.," 1910, where not only Luther's (pp. 20 ff.,
48 ff.) but also the Zwinglians' and Calvinists' attitude to the matter
is dealt with.

2 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 305.

3 " Werke," Weim. ed., 30, 1, p. 123 ff. ; Erl. ed., 21, p. 26 ff. ;
cp. p. 127 = 28 ff. 4 Ib., p. 211-127. 5 /&., p. 205 = 121.

DEVIL'S POWER FOR EVIL 279

first commandment are all " who make a compact with the devil
that he may give them enough money, help them in their love-
affairs, preserve their cattle, bring back lost property, etc., like
wise all sorcerers and magicians/'1

In his home-postils he practically makes it one of the chief
dogmas of the faith, that all temporal misfortune hails from the
devil ; " the heathen " alone know this not ; " but do you learn
to say : This is the work of the hateful devil." " The devil's bow
is always bent and his musket always primed, and we are his
target ; at us he aims, smiting us with pestilence, ' Franzosen '
[venereal disease], war, fire, hail and cloudburst." "It is also
certain that wherever we be there too is a great crowd of demons
who lie in wait for us, would gladly affright us, do us harm, and,
were it possible, fall upon us with sword and long spear. Against
these are pitted the holy angels who stand up in our defence."2

The devil, so he teaches in his Church-postils, a new edition of
which he brought out in 1543 towards the end of his life, could
either of himself or by the agency of others " raise storms,
shoot people, lame and wither limbs, harrow children in the
cradle, bewitch men's members, etc."3 Thanks to him, "those
who ply the magic art are able to give to things a shape other than
their own, so that what in reality is a man looks like an ox or a
cow ; they can make people to fall in love, or to bawd, and do
many other devilish deeds."4

How accustomed he was to enlarge on this favourite subject
in his addresses to the people is plain from a sermon delivered
at the Coburg in 1530, which he sent to the press the following
year : " The devil sends plagues, famines, worry and war,
murder, etc. Whose fault is it that one man breaks a leg, another
is drowned, and a third commits murder ? Surely the devil's
alone. This we see with our own eyes and touch with our hands."
" The Christian ought to know that he sits in the midst of demons
and that the devil is closer to him than his coat or his shirt, nay,
even than his skin, that he is all around us and that we must
ever be at grips with him and fighting him." In these words there
is already an echo of his fancied personal experiences, particu
larly of his inward struggles at the time of the dreaded Diet of
Augsburg, to which he actually alludes in this sermon ; the sub
jective element comes out still more strongly when he proceeds
in his half -jesting way : " The devil is more at home in Holy
Scripture than Paris, Cologne and all the godless make-believes,
however learned they may be. Whoever attempts to dispute
with him will assuredly be pitched on the ash heap, and when it
comes to a trial of strength, there too he wins the day ; in one
hour he could do to death all the Turks, Emperors, Kings and

1 Ib., p. 134-36.

2 Ib., Erl. ed., 32, p. 477 f., in the first Sermon on the Angels.

3 Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 590 f. ; Erl. ed., 102, p. 359. In the
editions from 1522 to 1540 the word " conjugal " is inserted before
" members."

4 Ib.

'280 LUTHER THE REFORMER

Princes."1 " Children should be taught at an early age to fear
the dangers arising from the devil ; they should be told : * Darling,
don't swear, etc. ; the devil is close beside you, and if you do he
may throw you into the water or bring down some other mis
fortune upon you.' "2 It is true that he also says children must
be taught that, by God's command, their guardian angel is ever
ready to assist them against the devil ; " God wills that he shall
watch over you so that when the devil tries to cast you into the
water or to affright you in your sleep, he may prevent him."
Still one may fairly question the educational value of such a fear
of the devil. Taking into account the pliant character of most
children and their susceptibility to fear, Luther was hardly
justified in expecting that : "If children are treated in this way
from their youth they will grow up into fine men and women."

According to an odd-sounding utterance of Luther's, every
bishop who attended the Diet of Augsburg brought as many
devils to oppose him " as a dog has fleas on its back on Mid
summer Day."3 Had the devil succeeded in his attempt there,
" the next thing would have been that he would have committed
murder,"4 but the angels dispatched by God had shielded him
and the Evangel.

When a fire devastated that part of Wittenberg which lay
beyond the Castle gate, Luther was quite overwhelmed ; watch
ing the conflagration he assured the people that, "it was the
devil's work." With his eyes full of tears he besought them to
" quench it with the help of God and His holy angels." A little
later he exhorted the people in a sermon to withstand by prayer
the work of the devil manifested in such fires. One of his pupils,
Sebastian Froschel, recalled the incident in a sermon on the
feast of St. Michael. After the example and words of the " late
Dr. Martin," he declares, " the devil's breath is so hot and
poisonous that it can even infect the air and set it on fire, so that
cities, land and people are poisoned and inflamed, for instance
by the plague and other even more virulent diseases. . . . The
devil is in and behind the flame which he fans to make it spread,"
etc.6 This tallies with what Luther, when on a journey, wrote
in later years to Catherine Bora of the fires which were occurring :
" The devil himself has come forth possessed with new and worse
demons ; he causes fires and does damage that is dreadful to
behold." The writer instances the forest fires then raging (in
July) in Thuringia and at Werda, and concludes : " Tell them to
pray against the troublesome Satan who is seeking us out."6

Madness, in Luther's view, is in every case due to the devil ;
"what is outside reason is simply Satanic."7 In a long letter

1 /&., 32, p. 112ff. = 182, p. 64 ff. 2 !&., p. 120 = 76.

3 16., 34, 2, p. 263 f. = 192, p. 75. 4 Ib., 32, p. 114= 182, p. 68.

5 " Drey Sermon, Von den Heiligen Engeln, Vom Teufel, Von der
Menschen Seele," Witteberg, 1563. In the sermon " Vom Teufel."
See N. Paulus, " Augsburger Postztng.," 1903, May 8.

6 July 26, 1540, " Brief wechsel," 13, p. 147.

7 Mathesius, " Tischreden," ed. 'Kroker, p. 331.

DEVIL'S POWER FOR EVIL 281

to his friend Link, in 1528, dealing with a case raised, he proves
that mad people must be regarded " as teased or possessed by
the devil." " Medical men who are unversed in theology know
not how great is the strength and power of the devil " ; but,
against their natural explanations, we can set, first, Holy Scrip
ture (Luke xiii. 16 ; Acts x. 38) ; secondly, experience, which
proves that the devil causes deafness, dumbness, lameness and
fever ; thirdly, the fact that he can even " fill men's minds with
thoughts of adultery, murder, robbery and all other evil lusts " ;
al] the more easily then was he able to confuse the mental powers.1
In the case of those possessed, the devil, according to Luther,
either usurps the place of the soul, or lives side by side with it,
ruling such unhappy people as the soul does the body.2

Thus it is the devil alone who is at work in those who commit
suicide, for the death a man fancies he inflicts on himself is
nothing but the " devil's work " ;3 the devil simply hoodwinks
him and others who see him. To Frederick Myconius he wrote,
in 1544 : " It is my habit to esteem such a one as killed ' simpli-
citer et immediate ' by the devil, just as a traveller might be by
highwaymen. ... I think we must stick to the belief that the
devil deceives such a man and makes him fancy that he is doing
something quite different, for instance praying, or something of
the sort."4 In the same sense he wrote to Anton Lauterbach, in
1542, when the latter informed him of three men who had hanged
themselves : " Satan, with God's leave, perpetrates such abomin
ations in the midst of our congregation. . . . He is the prince
of this world who in mockery deludes us into fancying that those
men hanged themselves, whereas it was he who killed them By
the images he brought before their mind, he made th&n think
that they were killing themselves "-—a statement at variance
with the one last given.5 Whereas in this letter he suggests that
the people should be told of such cases from the pulpit so that
they may not despise the " devil's power from a mistaken sense
of security," previously, in conversation he had declared, that
it ought not to be admitted publicly that such persons could not
be damned not having been masters of themselves : " They do

1 On July 14, 1528, " Brief wechsel," 6, p. 299. Cp. Mathesius, ib.,
p. 179 : " Nothing is more certain than that the insane are not with
out their devils ; these make them madder ; the devil knows those
who are of a melancholy turn, and of this tool he makes use." Thus
Luther in 1540.

2 " Sic informal [diabolus] animam et corpus, ut obsessi nihil audiant,
videant, sentiant ; sed ipse est Us pro anima," Mathesius, ib., p. 198
(in 1540). Cp. also " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 13, with reference to 1 Cor.
v. 5. The passage occurs in the Table-Talk, ch. 24, No. 68. Cp. Erl.
ed., vol. 59, p. 289 to vol. 60, p. 75. This chapter is followed by others
on similar subjects. Demonology occupies altogether a very large
place. Ch. 59, " On the Angels," comprises hardly four pages.

3 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 326 (in 1543).

4 Dec. 1, 1544, " Brief e," ed. De Wette, 5, p. 699 f.

6 July 25, 1542 : " quitm ipse occiderit eos et imaginatione animis
impressa coegerit eos putare, quod se ipsos suspenderent."

282 LUTHER THE REFORMER

not commit this wilfully, but are impelled to it by the devil. . . ,
But the people must not be told this."1 Speaking of a woman
who was sorely tempted and worried, he said to his friends, in
1543 : " Even should she hang herself or drown herself through
it, it can do her no harm ; it is just as though it all happened in
a dream." The source of this woman's distress was her low
spirits and religious doubts.2

On all that the Devil is able to do

Many, in Luther's opinion, had been snatched off alive
by the devil, particularly when they had made a compact
or had dealings with him, or had given themselves up to
him.

For instance, he had carried off Pfeifer of Miihlberg, not far
from Erfurt, and also another man of the same name at Eisenach ;
indeed, the devil had fetched the latter away in spite of his being
watched by the preacher Justus 'Menius and " many of his
clergymen," and though " doors and windows had been shut so
as to prevent his being carried away " ; the devil, however,
broke away some tiles " round the stove " and thus got in ;
finally he slew his victim " not far from the town in a hazel
thicket."3 Needless to say it is a great crime to bargain with the
devil. 4 This Dr. Eck had done and likewise the Elector Joachim I
of Brandenburg (f!535), who wanted to live another fifteen years ;
this, however, the devil did not allow. 5 Amsdorf too was dragged
into the diabolical affair ; one night at an inn two dead men
appeared to him, thanks to some " Satanic art," and compelled
him to draw up a document in writing and hand it over to
Joachim. Two spirits assisted on the occasion, bearing candles.6

During battles the devil is able to carry men off more easily,
but then the angels also kill by Divine command, as the Old
Testament bears witness, for there " one angel could cause the
death of many persons."7 In war the devil is at work and makes
use of the newest weapons " which indeed are Satan's own inven
tion," for these cannon " send men flying into the air " and that

1 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 59. Mathesius, " Aufzeichn.,"
p. 198.

2 Mathesius, ib. Cp. " Werke," Erl. ed., 21, p. 127.

3 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 24 ; cp. pp. 25, 27.

4 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 269 ; " Aufzeichn.," p. 300.

5 Mathesius, in both the passages quoted. Cp. Lauterbach, " Tage-
buch," p. 105 (1538) : " habuit fcedus cum Sathana ipse et pater eius, et
foedissima scortatione occubuit securissime."

6 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 207, under the heading " Spectra."
In the same volume pp. 218-242 treat of the devil under the heading
" Diabolus, illius natura, conatus, insidice, figura, expulsio." In the
second volume the ch. on " tentationes," pp. 287-320, and, in the third,
that on " fascinationes et incantationes," pp. 9-14, are important.

7 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 224 f. (1540).

DEVIL'S POWER FOR EVIL 283

"is the end of all man's strength."1 It is also the devil who
guides the sleep-walkers " so that they do everything as though
wide awake," " but still there is something wanting and some
defect apparent."2

Elsewhere too Luther discerns the work of the devil ; for
instance, when Satan sends a number of strange caterpillars into
his garden,3 pilfers things, hampers the cattle and damages the
stalls4 and interferes with the preparation of the cheese and
milk.5 " Every tree has its lurking demon.6 You can see how,
to your damage, Satan knocks down walls and palings that
already totter ;7 he also throws you down the stairs so as to make
a cripple of you.8

In cases of illness it is the devil who enables the Jews to be so
successful in effecting cures, more particularly in the case of the
" great and those of high standing " ;9 on the other hand he is
also able maliciously to hinder the good effect of any medicine,
as Luther himself had experienced when he lay sick in 1537. He
can alter every medicine or medicament in the boxes, so that
what has served its purpose well once or twice no longer works
at all ; " so powerful is the devil."10 Luther, as his pupils bear
witness, had frequently maintained that many of his bodily
ailments were inflicted on him solely by the devil's hatred.

Satan is a great foe of marriage and the blessing of children.
" This is why you find he has so many malicious tricks and ways
of frightening women who are with child, and causes such mis
fortune, cunning, murder, etc."11 " Satan bitterly hates
matrimony," he says in 1537, 12 and, in 1540, "he has great power
in matrimonial affairs, for unless God were to stand by us how
could the children grow up?"13 In matrimonial disputes "the
devil shows his finger " ; the Pope gets along easily, " he simply
dissolves all marriages " ; but we, " on account of the conten
tions instigated by the devil," must have " people who can give
advice."14

Not him alone but many others had the devil affrighted by the
"noisy spirits."15 These noisy spirits were, however, far more
numerous before the coming of the Evangel. They were looked
upon, quite wrongly, as the souls of the dead, and Masses and
prayers were said and good works done to lay them to rest ;16

1 Ib., p. 402 : " dixit de machinis bellicis et bombardis," etc. (1537).
" Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 23.

3 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 262 (1542-43).

4 Ib., p. 380 (1536).

5 Ib., " Werke," Erl. ed., 32, p. 291 : " We see how the milk thieves
and other witches often do great mischief " (1543). Cp. Lauterbach,
" Tagebuch," p. 121.

6 Schlaginhaufen, " Aufzeichn.," p. 117 (1532).

7 " Werke," Erl. ed., 59, p. 304. 8 Ib., 60, p. 73.
9 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 322 (1543). 10 Ib., p. 412 f.

11 " Werke," Weim. ed., 24, p. 130 ; Erl. ed., 182, p. 70 (1530).

12 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 395 f. (1537). 13 Ib., p. 198 (1540).
14 Ib., p. 240. 15 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 70.

i c

Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585 ; Erl. ed. 102, p. 354.

284 LUTHER THE REFORMER

but now " you know very well who causes this ; you know it is
the devil ; he must not be exorcised,1 rather " we must despise
him and waken our holy faith against him ;2 we must be willing
to abide the " spooks and spirits " calmly and with faith if God
permits them to " exercise their wantonness on us " and " to
affright us."3 Nevertheless, as he adds with much truth, "we
must not be too ready to give credence to everyone, for many
people are given to inventing such things."4

At the present time the noisy spirits are not so noticeable ;
" among us they have thinned " ;5 the chief reason is, that the
devils now prefer the company of the heretics, anabaptists and
fanatics;6 for Satan "enters into men, for instance into the
heretics and fanatics, into Miinzer and his ilk, also into the
usurers and others " ;7 " the fanatic spirits are greatly on the
increase."8 The false teachers prove by their devilish speech
how greatly the devil, " clever and dangerous trickster that he
is," " can deceive the hearts and consciences of men and hold
them captive in his craze." " What is nothing but lies, idle
error and gruesome darkness, that they take to be the pure,
unvarnished truth ! "9

If the devil can thus deceive men's minds, surely it is far easier
for him to bewitch their bodily senses. " He can hoax and cheat
all the senses,"10 so that a man thinks he sees something that he
can't see, or hears what isn't, for instance, "thunder, pipes or
bugle-calls." Luther fancies he finds an allusion to something of
the sort in the words of Paul to the Galatians iii. 1 : " Who hath
bewitched you before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set
forth [that you should not obey the truth] ? )J11 Children can be
bewitched by the evil eye of one who is under a spell, and Jerome
was wrong when he questioned whether the illness of children in
a decline was really due to the evil eye.12 It is certain that " by
his great power the devil is able to blind our eyes and our souls,"
as he did in the case of the woman who thought she was wearing
a crown, whereas it was simply "cow dung."13 He tells how, in
Thuringia, eight hares were trapped, which, during the night,

1 Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 70. Cp. p. 31 and Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585 ;
Erl. ed., 102, p. 354. 2 Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63.

3 Ib., Weim. ed., 10, 1, 1, p. 585 ; Erl. ed., 102, p. 354.

4 Ib., Erl. ed., 60, p. 63. 5 Ib., 59, p. 348. 6 Ib.
7 Ib., 60, p. 70. 8 Ib., 59, p. 348.

9 Ib., Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316 ; Irmischer, 1, p. 279, in the fuller
Commentary on Galatians (1535). Cp. Mathesius, " Tischreden,"
p. 357 : " In Antinomis furit Sathan " (1539). Ib., p. 206 : " Ana-
baptistce non intelligunt iram Dei, sic exccecantur a diabolo ; quare non
anguntur, ut sancti, qui hcec omnia sentiunt ; diabolus enim ipsorum aures
et animos tenet occupatos," etc. (1540).

10 " Werke," Weim. ed., 40, 1, p. 316 ; Irmischer, 1, p. 279. ll Ib.

12 Ib., Weim. ed., 2, p. 505 f. ; Irmischer, 3, p. 251, in the first
Commentary on Galatians.

13 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 97 (1540). Cp. " Werke," Weim. ed.,
1, p. 409 ; "Opp. lat. exeg.," 12, p. 23, in the Exposition 6f the Ten
Commandments, 1518.

THE DEVIL'S DWELLING-PLACE 285

were changed into horses' heads, such as we find lying on the
carrion heap."1 Had not St. Macarius by his prayers dispelled
the Satanic delusion by which a girl had been changed into a
cow in the presence of many persons, including her own parents ?
The distressed parents brought their daughter in the semblance
of a cow to Macarius " in order that she might recover her human
shape," and " the Lord did in point of fact dissolve the spell
whereby men's senses had been misled." Luther several times
relates this incident, both in conversation and in writing.2

There is certainly no lack of marvellous tales of devils
either in his works or in his Table-Talk.3

The toils of the sorcerer are everywhere. Magic may
prove most troublesome in married life, more particularly
where true faith is absent ; for, as he told the people in a
sermon on May 8, 1524, " conjugal impotence is sometimes
produced by the devil, by means of the Black Art ; in the
case of [true] Christians, however, this cannot happen."4

On the Abode of the Devil ; his Shapes and Kinds

It is worth while to glance at what Luther says of the
dwelling-places of the devil, the different shapes he is wont
to assume, and the various categories into which demons
may be classed.

First, as to his abode. In a sermon recently published, and
dating from June 13, 1529, Luther says : " The devil inhabits
the forests, the thickets, and the waters, and insinuates himself
amongst us everywhere in order to destroy us ; sleep he never
does." Preaching in the hot weather, he warns his hearers
against the cool waters in which the devil lurks : "Be careful
about bathing in the cold water. . . . Every year we hear of
people being drowned [by the devil] through bathing in the
Elbe."5

In another sermon incorporated in the Church-postils he
explains how in countries like ours, " which are well watered,"

1 " Werke," Erl. ed., 59, p. 321.

2 /&., Weim. ed., 40, 1, pp. 315, 317, 319 ; Irmischer, 1, pp. 278, 280,
283 ; Erl. ed., 49, p. 19, in the Exposition of St. John xiv.-xvi. Erl. ed.,
59, p. 335.

3 Cp., for instance, Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," pp. 55, 111. Mathesius,
" Tischreden," pp. 97, 130, 174, 198, 279, 380, 436. " Werke,"
Erl. ed., 59, pp. 317, 320-323 ; 60, pp. 24, 27, 57, 63, 71, etc.

4 " Werke," Weim. ed., 15, p. 560.

5 /&., 29, p. 401. Sermon of 1529. Similarly in the sermon of
July 2, 1536, ib., 41, p. 633. Cp. N. Paulus, " Hexenwahn " (see above,
p. 278, n. 1), p. 31.

286 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the devils are fond of infesting the waters and the swamps ;
they sometimes drown those who venture there to bathe or even
to walk. Item, in some places Naiades are to be met with who
entice the children to the water's edge, drag them in and drown
them : all these are devils.1 Such devils can commit fornication
with the maidens, and " are able to beget children which are
simply devils " ;2 for the devil will often drag a girl into the water,
get her with child and keep her by him until she has borne her
baby ; he then lays these children in other people's cradles,
removing the real children and carrying them off.3

Elsewhere the devils prefer " bare and desolate regions,"
" woods and wildernesses."4 " Some are to be found in the
thick black clouds, these cause hailstorms, thunder and lightning,
and poison the air, the pastures, etc." Hence " philosophi "
ought not to go on explaining these phenomena as though they
were natural.5 Further, the devil has a favourite dwelling-place
deep down in the earth, in the mines, where he " pesters and
deceives people," showing them for instance what appears to be
" solid silver, whereas it is nothing of the kind."6 " Satan hides
himself in the apes and long- tailed monkeys," who lie in wait
for men and with whom it is wrong to play.7 That he inhabits
these creatures, and also the parrots, is plain from their skill in
imitating human beings.8

In some countries many more devils are to be found than in
others. " There are many evil spirits in Prussia and also in
Pilappen [Lapland]." In Switzerland the devils make a " fright
ful to-do " in the " Pilatus tarn not far from Lucerne " ; in
Saxony, " in the Poltersberg tarn," things are almost as bad, for
if a stone be thrown in, it arouses a " great tempest."" " Damp
and stuffy places " are however the devils' favourite resort.10 He
was firmly convinced that in the moist and swampy districts of
Saxony all the devils " that Christ drove out of the swine in
Jerusalem and Judaea had congregated " ; "so much thieving,
sorcery and pilfering goes on that the Evil One must indeed be
present in person."11 The fact of so many devils inhabiting
Saxony was perhaps the reason, so he adds quaintly enough,
" why the Evangel had to be preached there, i.e. that they might
be chased away." It was for this reason, so he repeats, " that
Christ came amongst the Wends [Prussians], the worst of all
the nations, in order to destroy the work of Satan and to drive
out the devils who there abide among the peasants and towns-

" Werke," Erl. ed., II2, p. 136. Sermon on Oculi Sunday.
Mathesius, " Aufzeichn.," p. 248.
" Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 22. Cp. p. 38 f.
16., II2, p. 136. 5 /&., 59, p. 287. 6 /&., p. 324.

Lauterbach, " Tagebuch," p. 110. " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 2,
p. 108.

8 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 179 ; " Aufzeichn.," pp. 87, 127.

9 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 13.

10 Ib., 59, p. 287. There ever was a widespread tendency to connect
the Evil One with the water.

11 Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 380 (1536).

THE DEVIL'S SHAPES 287

people."1 That he was disposed to believe that a number, by no
means insignificant, of devils could assemble in one place is plain
from several statements such as, that at the Wartburg he him
self had been plagued by "a thousand devils," that at Augsburg
every bishop had brought as many devils with him to the Diet
as a dog has fleas in hot weather, and, finally, that at Worms
their number was probably not far short of the tiles on the roofs.

The forms the devil assumes when he appears to men are very
varied ; to this the accounts sufficiently bear witness.

He appeared as a goat,2 and often as a dog ;3 he tormented a
sick woman in the shape of a calf from which Luther set her free
— at least for one night.4 He is fond of changing himself into
cats and other animals, foxes, hares, etc., " without, however,
assuming greater powers than are possessed by such animals."5
The semblance of the serpent is naturally very dear to the devil.
To a sick girl at Wittenberg with whom Luther happened to be,
he appeared under the form of Christ, but afterwards transformed
himself into a serpent and bit the girl's ear till the blood came. 6
The devil comes as Christ or as a good angel, so as to be the better
able to tempt people. He has been seen and heard under the guise
of a hermit, of a holy monk, and even, so the tale runs, of a preacher ;
the latter had " preached so earnestly that the whole church was
reduced to tears " ; whereupon he showed himself as the devil ;
but " whether this story be true or not, I leave you to decide."7
The form of a satyr suits him better, what we now call a hob
goblin ; in this shape he " frequently appeared to the heathen in
order to strengthen them in their idolatry."8 A prettier make
under which he appears is that of the " brownie " ; it was in this
guise that he was wont to sit on a clean corner of the hearthstone
beside a maid who had strangled her baby.9 From the behaviour
of the devils we may infer that, " so far they are not undergoing
any punishment though they have already been sentenced, for
were they being punished they would not play so many roguish
tricks."10

Amongst the different kinds of devils he enumerates, using
names which recall the humorous ones common in the old folk
lore of Germany, are not merely the stupid, the playful, the mali
cious and the murderous fiends, but also the more sightly ones,11

1 Ib., p. 118 (1540).

" Werke," Erl. ed., 59, p. 340. 3 Ib., 60, pp. 64, 66.

Ib., 59, p. 138.

Mathesius, " Tischreden," p. 129 (1540).

" Werke," Erl. ed., 58, p. 129. The account assures us that he
claimed to have seen the apparition himself.

Ib., 31, p. 363.

" Werke," Weim. ed., 25, p. 140, in the shorter Exposition of
Isaias iii. 21.

9 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 71.

10 Mathesius, "Tischreden," p. 300 (1542-44).

11 " Werke," Erl. ed., 60, p. 73.

288 LUTHER THE REFORMER

viz. the familiar and friendly demons ; then again there are the
childish little devils who allure to unchastity and so forth though
not to unbelief or despair like the more dangerous ones.1 He is
familiar with angelic, shining, white and holy devils, i.e. who
pretend to be such, also with black devils and the " supreme
majestic devil." The majestic devil wants to be worshipped like
God, and, in this, being "so quick-witted," he actually succeeded
in the ages before Luther's day, for " the Pope worshipped him."2
The devil repaid the Pope by bewitching the world in his favour ;
he brought him a large following and wrought much harm by
means " of lies and magic," doing on a vast scale what the
" witches " do in a smaller way.3

There are further, as Luther jestingly explains, house-devils,
Court-devils and church-devils ; of these " the last are the worst." 4
" Boundless is the devils' power," he says elsewhere, " and count
less their number ; nor are they all childish little devils, but
great national devils, devils of the sovereigns, devils of the Church,
who, with their five thousand years' experience, have grown very
knowing ... in fact, far too cunning for us in these latter days."5
" Satan knows his business and no one but Jesus Christ can cope
with him."6 Very dangerous indeed are the Court-devils, who
"never rest," but "busy themselves at Court, and work all the
mischief in the councils of the kings and rulers, thwarting all
that is good ; for the devil has some fine rakehells at Court."7
As for the noisy devils, they had troubled him even in his youth.8

The Papists have their own devils who work supposed miracles
on their behalf, for the wonders which occur amongst them at the
places of pilgrimage or elsewhere in answer to their prayers are
not real miracles but devil's make-believe. In fact, Satan fre
quently makes a person appear ill, and, then, by releasing him
from the spell, cures him again.9

The above ideas Luther had to a large extent borrowed
from the past, indeed we may say that the gist of his fancies
concerning the devil was but part of the great legacy of
credulity, folk-lore and the mistaken surmises of theologians
handed down verbally and in writing from the Middle Ages.
Only an age-long accumulation of prejudice, rife particu
larly among the Saxon people, can explain Luther's rooted
attachment to such a congeries of wild fancies.

1 Ib., 59, p. 294 ; cp. 60, p. 123. " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, pp. 235,
318. For an explanation of the word here used see Forstemann,
" Tischreden," 3, p. 132, n. 3.

2 " Werke," Erl. ed., 192, p. 281 f.

3 Ib., 32, p. 291 in " Vom Schem Hamphoras," 1543.

4 Mathesius, "Tischreden," p. 258 (1542-43).

5 " Colloq.," ed. Bindseil, 1, p. 208. 6 Ib., p. 218.

7 " Werke," Erl. ed., 46, p. 211 f., in the Exposition of John i. and ii.
(1537-38). 8 Ib., 60, p. 70.

9 " Werke," WTeim. ed,, 40, 1, p. 315 ; Irmischer, 1, p. 277 sq.

WITCHCRAFT AND SORCERY 289

Assisted by the credulity of Melanchthon and other of his
associates Luther not only added to the number of such
ideas, but, thanks to his gift of vivid portraiture, made them
far more strong and life-like than before. Through his widely-
read works he introduced them into circles in which they
were as yet scarcely known, and, in particular, established
them firmly in the Lutheran world for many an age to come.

The Devil and the Witches

" It is quite certain," says Paulus in his recent critical
study of the history of witchcraft, " that Luther in his ideas
on witchcraft was swayed by mediaeval opinion." " In
many directions the innovators in the 16th century shook
off the yoke of the Middle Ages ; why then did they hold
fast to the belief in witches ? Why did Luther and many
of his followers even outstrip the Middle Ages in the stress
they laid on the work of the devil ? '?1

Paulus here touches upon a question which the Protestant
historian, Walter Kohler, had already raised, viz. : " Is it
possible to explain the Reformers' attachment to the belief in
witchcraft simply on the score that they received it from the
Middle Ages ? How did they treat mediaeval tradition in other
matters ? Why then was their attitude different here ? "2

G. Steinhausen, in his " Geschichte der deutschen Kultur,"
writes : " No one ever insisted more strongly than Luther on
his role [the devil's] ; he was simply carried away by the idea. . . .
Though in his words and the stories he tells of the devil he speaks
the language of the populace, yet the way in which he weaves
diabolical combats and temptations into man's whole life is both
new and unfortunate. Every misfortune, war and tempest,
every sickness, plague, crime and deformity emanates from the
Evil One."8

Some of what Luther borrowed from the beliefs of his own
day goes back to pre-Christian times. The belief in witches
comprised much heathen tradition too deeply rooted for the early
missionaries to eradicate. Moreover, certain statements of olden
ecclesiastical writers incautiously exploited enabled even the
false notions of the ancient Grseco-Roman world to become also
current. Fear of hidden, dangerous forces, indiscriminating repe
tition of alleged incidents from the unseen, the ill-advised dis
cussions of certain theologians and thoughtless sermons of popu
lar orators, all these causes and others contributed to produce

1 " Hexenwahn " (see above, p. 278, n. 1), pp. 45, 67.

2 " Theol. Literaturztng.," 1909, p. 147. Paulus, ib., p. 46.

3 Leipzig, 1904, p. 518. Cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 1-10.

V. — U

290 LUTHER THE REFORMER

the crass belief in witches as it existed even before Luther's day
at the close of the Middle Ages, and such as we find it, for instance,
in the sermons of Geiler von Kaysersberg.

The famous Strasburg preacher not only accepted it as an
undoubted fact, that witches were able with the devil's help to
do all kinds of astounding deeds, but he also takes for granted
the possibility of their making occasional aerial trips, though it
is true he dismisses the nocturnal excursions of the women with
Diana, Venus and Herodias as mere diabolical delusion. He
himself never formally demanded the death-penalty for witches,
but it may be inferred that he quite countenanced the severe
treatment advocated in the " Witches' Hammer." In his remarks
on witches he follows partly Martin Plantsch, the Tubingen priest
and University professor, partly, and still more closely, the
" Formicarius " of the learned Dominican Johannes Nider
(1380-1438).1

Concerning the witches and their ways Luther's works
contain an extraordinary wealth of information.

In the sermons he delivered on the Ten Commandments
as early as 1516 and 1517, and which, in 1518, he published
in book form,2 he took over an abundance of superstition
from the beliefs current amongst the people, and from such
writers as Geiler. In 1518 and 1519 were published no less
than five editions in Latin of the sermons on the Decalogue ;
the book was frequently reprinted separately and soon made
its appearance in Latin in some collections of Luther's
writings ; later on it figures in the complete Latin editions
of his works ; six German editions of it had appeared up to
1520 and it is also comprised in the German collections of
his works. In his old age, when the " evils of sorcery seemed
to be gaining ground anew," he deemed it " necessary," as
"he said,3 "to bring out the book once more with his own
hand " ; certain tales, amongst which he instances one
concerning the devil's cats and a young man, might serve to
demonstrate " the power and malice of Satan " to all the
world. One cannot but regard it as a mistake on Luther's
part, when, in his sermons on the Ten Commandments, he
takes his hearers and readers into the details of the magic

1 Cp. Paulus, ib., pp. 1-19.

2 " Werke," Weim. ed., 1, p. 398 ff. ; " Opp. lat. exeg.," 12,
p. 3 sqq.

3 Mathesius, " Ti